Educational Psychology

An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Cyberbullying and its relationship with physical,

verbal, and relational bullying: a structural
equation modelling approach

Stefan Johansson & Göran Englund

To cite this article: Stefan Johansson & Göran Englund (2020): Cyberbullying and its relationship
with physical, verbal, and relational bullying: a structural equation modelling approach, Educational
Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2020.1769033

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1769033

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 09 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1769033

Cyberbullying and its relationship with physical, verbal,

and relational bullying: a structural equation
modelling approach
Stefan Johanssona €ran Englundb
and Go
a
Department of Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden;
b
Center for School Development, Gothenburg, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The article focuses on the contentious relation between cyberbul- Received 11 January 2018
lying and physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Drawing on Accepted 11 May 2020
items from the Olweus questionnaire, the study used confirmatory
factor analysis and structural equation modelling, and latent fac- KEYWORDS
tors of bullying were fitted to the data. Different background vari- Cyberbullying; physical
bullying; verbal bullying;
ables were related to cyberbullying and traditional bullying relational bullying;
factors. The results revealed high correlations between physical, structural equa-
verbal, and relational bullying. While the relations between cyber- tion modelling
bullying and physical and verbal bullying were modest to moder-
ate, a substantial correlation between cyberbullying and relational
bullying was observed (.69). Further, it was noted that the level of
anxiety had a stronger relation with the cyberbullying factor,
while number of friends was similarly related to all four bullying
factors. The implications of the high relation between cyber and
relational bullying, as well as their similar association with the
covariates, were discussed.

Background
Many negative consequences come with school bullying and peer victimisation. It has been
demonstrated, for example, that bullying is related to lower school engagement, lower aca-
demic self-perceptions, and lower academic achievement (Hellfeldt et al., 2018; Ladd et al.,
2017). Bullying has, moreover, become a significant public health problem, resulting in an
increased risk for depression later in life, anti-social behaviour, criminal offence, and even
suicide (Beckman, 2013; Breivik et al., 2017; Farrington et al., 2012; Kowalski et al., 2014;
Rigby, 2008; Smith, 2013; Ulriksen & Knapstad, 2016; United Nations, 2016).
Smith (2014) distinguishes four main types of bullying behaviour, namely physical bul-
lying, verbal bullying, relational bullying (social exclusion and rumour spreading), and
cyberbullying. Physical bullying is more prevalent in the younger ages (Smith, 2014).

CONTACT Stefan Johansson Stefan.johansson@gu.se Department of Education and Special Education,

University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg 40530, Sweden
ß 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 S. JOHANSSON AND G. ENGLUND

The more direct types of traditional bullying (i.e. verbal bullying carried out face-to-face)
involve characteristics similar to those of the more direct types of cyberbullying (e.g.
texting insults via sms, prank calls, etc.), while indirect types of bullying (e.g. rumour
spreading) have shown more similarities with bullying carried out via social media (e.g.
Slonje et al., 2012). While there is research indicating severe consequences from all types
of bullying, Chen et al. (2015) noted that physical and verbal bullying were perceived as
more severe than relational bullying and cyberbullying by the victims.
In recent years, cyberbullying has gained much attention in research (Kowalski et al.,
2012, 2014; Olweus, 2017; Slonje, 2011). The concepts of both traditional bullying and
cyberbullying have roots in the definition introduced by Olweus (1991, 2010), which
comprises three criteria: intention (aggressiveness), repetition, and imbalance of power.
Olweus (2012) argued that the three criteria for traditional bullying are largely applicable
to cyberbullying and that the number of students who experience bullying has not
changed since the rise of cyberbullying. In their review of problems with cyberbullying
research, Olweus and Limber (2018) report that several scholars in the field characterise
cyberbullying as a subcategory or specific form of bullying. However, analysing large sur-
vey data via factor analytic methods, several researchers have found a common factor
for traditional school bullying and cyberbullying, leading them to conclude that the two
phenomena are much the same (e.g. Bauman & Newman, 2013; Olweus, 2012). In spite
of the empirical findings, previous research suggests that the conceptualisation of cyber-
bullying, to a varying degree, differs from that of traditional bullying (e.g. Antoniadou &
Kokkinos, 2015; Smith, 2013). Antoniadou and Kokkinos (2015) identified three main
positions in the conceptualisation of cyberbullying: (1) cyberbullying is generally the
same phenomenon as school bullying but realised with different means, (2) specific
aspects of cyberbullying are similar to school bullying but only under certain circumstan-
ces, and (3) the phenomenon of cyberbullying is distinctly different from school bullying.
Especially, criteria of intentionality, repetition and power imbalance are not as clear-
cut for cyberbullying as for school bullying. Power imbalance may be doubted in
cyberbullying as the perpetrator does not usually see the victim’s reaction, thus not
gaining the status by showing abusive power over others in front of witnesses.
Repetition may be somewhat redundant to cyberbullying since pictures or messages
sent online can reach large audiences, and does not need to be sent over and over
again to cause harm. Moreover, online material may be redistributed by people other
than the initial bully. Intentionality of the acts on the internet can also be questioned.
Not all acts which are perceived as cyberbullying are intended to cause harm. Rather,
some studies indicate that the cyberbullies’ behaviour was meant as joking (Law et al.,
2012). The perceived anonymity on the internet has been suggested as an explanation
for the perpetrators’ lack of awareness of their actions and its consequences. The char-
acteristics of anonymity are also special to cyberbullying in that it is mainly indirect
rather than face-to-face and as it requires some degree of technological skills.
Perceived anonymity may also increase the number of potential perpetrators; many
students who would not dare to bully in real life also involve in cyberbullying due to
its perceived anonymity (see, e.g. Kowalski et al., 2014).
The conceptual discrepancy noted above is perhaps a reason to that bullying
research has not reached a consensus on how cyberbullying is related to traditional
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 3

types of bullying. There are reasons to believe that the different features of cyberbully-
ing may lead to a group of somewhat different perpetrators as well as victims.
However, the inconsistent findings in research on cyberbullying call for further scrutiny
on the matter of whether cyberbullying and traditional bullying should be considered
much the same (e.g. Olweus & Limber, 2018).

The relation between traditional and cyberbullying quantified

A general conclusion reached by Olweus is that since the rise of cyberbullying, rela-
tively few new victims or bullies have been created. In his analyses of a large data set
(450,000 students) of several cohorts of students from the United States as well as a
sample of Norwegian students, Olweus (2012) documented a substantial overlap
between cyberbullying and other traditional forms of bullying. In the U.S. sample, of
the students who had been exposed to cyberbullying, about 88% reported that they
had also experienced traditional bullying. In the Norwegian sample the percentage
was even higher—93%. This is in line with Salmivalli and Po €yho
€nen’s (2012) results
from a Finnish study, which found an overlap of about 90%. It should be noted that
Olweus condensed the data into dichotomous categories and that the studies that do
not collapse item responses would obtain lower estimates. Nonetheless, these and
other research findings led Olweus (2017) to tentatively conclude that cyberbullying
can be viewed as a form of bullying, thus in the same vein as verbal, physical, and
relational bullying.
It should be emphasised, however, that in several studies the association between
traditional and cyberbullying varies a great deal. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) investi-
gated some 1500 youths aged 10–17 and found that ‘only’ 44% of the cyberbullying
victims reported being targets of offline bullying as well. The data collection was car-
ried out in 1999–2000, and the researchers recognised that research about cyberbully-
ing was in its infancy. For example, few standardised and accepted measures had
been developed; this study relied on two items measuring ‘Internet harassment’.
Furthermore, Hinduja and Patchin’s (2008) study also indicated a far-from-perfect over-
lap in that youth who had been victims of traditional bullying in the previous
6 months were about 2.5 times more likely to be victims of cyberbullying than their
counterparts whom did not experience traditional bullying. Based on their later data
collection, Hinduja and Patchin (2012) found that over two-thirds (67%) of the youths
who reported having been cyberbullied in the previous month said they were also
bullied at school within the same time period. In terms of correlations, a recent study
analysing 1097 students in Greece (mean age ¼13.94 years) showed a moderate asso-
ciation (r ¼ 0.46) between cyberbullying and traditional bullying (Antoniadou et al.,
2019). The choice of variables, measurement context (bullying or general aggression/
harassment), and reliability of measurement are examples of factors that are likely to
be a reason for the varying results across studies.
However, in spite of the much-studied relationship, less is known about the relation
between the different forms of traditional bullying (physical, verbal, and relational)
and cyberbullying, especially for student groups in which characteristics such as age
and gender differ. In a study from the United States, Waasdorp and Bradshaw (2015)
4 S. JOHANSSON AND G. ENGLUND

examined 28,104 students from Grades 9–12 (mean age 15.93) who answered an
Olweus-inspired questionnaire, and they found that cyberbullying was most likely to
occur concurrently with traditional forms of bullying in school. The largest proportion
of the victimised students (50%) experienced all four forms of bullying. Only 4.3% of
the victimised students had experienced only cyberbullying. Similarly, Olweus (2012)
found that there was a small group of students who indicated that they had experi-
enced only cyberbullying.
Despite the many similarities, the unique characteristics of both traditional bullying
and cyberbullying possibly affects the strength of the relationships between traditional
bullying, cyberbullying, and psychological outcomes. We have focussed on aspects
related to gender, anxiety levels, and number of friends.

Gender
Gender differences in student bullying have been investigated in a large body of pre-
vious research (Beckman, 2013; Kowalski et al., 2014; Ortega et al., 2012). On the
whole, there are striking similarities between how boys and girls experience bullying.
Some studies indicate that the outcomes of bullying are more severe for girls,
although this does not take into account the duration of bullying (Hellfeldt et al.,
2018). For example, using data from the Olweus questionnaire, a school-based report
from the United States showed that children experience an average of just over three
out of 10 forms of bullying (Urbanski & Riese, 2016). The report found verbal bullying
as the most common form for both boys and girls (boys 15%, girls 16%). The percent-
age of cyberbullying was lower, however, 4% for boys and 6% for girls. In a study
from Sweden, Beckman (2013) analysed an Olweus-inspired web questionnaire for
some 4000 students in Grades 7–9. She found gender differences in cyberbullying
(with a higher risk of girls being cyberbullied) but no differences in trad-
itional bullying.

Number of friends
Wang et al. (2009) surveyed 7182 students in Grades 6–10 in the United States and
found that having many friends was a protective factor against traditional bullying
(physical, verbal, and relational) but that cyberbullying was not related to the number
of friends. They also concluded that cyberbullying has a nature distinct from trad-
itional bullying. Frisen and Berne (2016) also pointed out that bullied students often
have fewer friends, and they feel lonelier in general. The authors suggested that rela-
tional bullying is likely to be carried out by the students closest to the victim. In the
same vein, Bjereld (2017) showed that bullied students in Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway, and Sweden who had more close friends had better measures of mental
health than their counterparts with fewer friends.

Anxiety
Recently, a growing body of research on the adult mental health outcomes of having
been a victim of childhood bullying has confirmed that these victims are at greater
risk for internalising symptoms (Chang et al., 2013). For example, Takizawa et al.
(2014) found that adults who had been bullied during childhood were more likely to
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

report specific depression and anxiety disorders. These findings are consistent with
cyberbullying research. Ybarra et al. (2007) indicated that adolescents who were cyber-
bullied by others were more prone to feel sad, anxious, and fearful. Students who are
victims of cyberbullying can experience higher levels of anxiety when they do not
know how many people are aware of the bullying. In virtual worlds, it can be espe-
cially difficult to combat cyberbullying since adolescents exhibit patterns of compul-
sive media use (Karlsen, 2016). For example, players of online games do not readily
quit playing even though they may experience aggression and bullying.

The present study

Because consensus of the empirical findings on the relationship between cyberbullying
and traditional bullying is far from reached, Olweus (2017) argued for an urgent need
for further studies on the matter. Furthermore, as most previous studies address the
overlap between bullying factors in terms of frequency of victims being exposed using
percentages, it is crucial to widen the scope with an eye on construct validity. Indeed,
one likely reason for the varying results is related to how bullying is measured; some-
times only one or a few variables are used to indicate the presence and type of bully-
ing. It is, furthermore, important to place the concepts of bullying in a proper context
by providing respondents a definition of the concepts.
Against this backdrop, the overarching aim of this study is to investigate whether
cyberbullying can be conceptualised as a form of traditional bullying or if it should be
regarded as a distinct phenomenon with special characteristics that make it different
from traditional bullying. By addressing the similarities and differences between verbal,
physical, and relational bullying and cyberbullying, we attempt to broaden and
deepen the current research about this relationship. In the present study, we focus on
the constructs of bullying, operationalising them using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) and structural equation modelling (SEM). As Kowalski et al. (2014) highlighted in
their review of the literature, few studies utilise CFA and SEM in research on bullying,
and there is a need for future work applying these methods.
The following research questions are posed:

1. What is the relationship between cyberbullying and traditional forms of bullying,

namely, verbal, physical, and relational?
2. What are the similarities and differences between the types of bullying with
respect to bullied students’ gender, number of friends, and anxiety level? That is,
are students who are verbally and physically bullied more similar to one another
in these characteristics than are students who are victims of relational bullying
and cyberbullying?

Method and data

A widely known programme for preventing bullying is the Olweus programme,
which is the oldest and one of the most researched programmes in the world
(Limber et al., 2018). Part of the Olweus programme includes a student
6 S. JOHANSSON AND G. ENGLUND

questionnaire measuring bullying. Originally developed by Dan Olweus, the ques-

tions concern general aspects of traditional bullying behaviour. In 2014, a unique
opportunity to explore cyberbullying in Sweden arose when additional questions
about cyberbullying was administered with the regular questionnaire regarding
traditional bullying. Some 8000 students took the questionnaire and the current
study draws on the responses of the students who, through this questionnaire,
reported that they had experienced cyberbullying.

Participants
The current study draws on data from 355 students in Grades 4–6 (aged 10–12 years)
in some 70 schools in seven municipalities in Sweden. The municipalities were
selected to capture a sample of schools that may be seen as representative of all
schools in Sweden. The municipalities vary in size (from 15,000–500,000 inhabitants)
and in their characteristics (cities, towns, suburbs, and rural areas). All in all, over 8000
students took the bullying questionnaire in Grades 4–6.
There were several reasons to select students in Grades 4–6. It is typically in these
grades that students receive their first smartphone. A national report showed that
98% of students in these age groups had their own cell phone (Findahl, 2014).
Another reason is that the level of bullying tends to peak in middle school and then
to decrease as the students age (Wang & Iannotti, 2012). Students in later grades indi-
cate lower rates of bullying, probably due to the fact that they are leaving compulsory
school in Grade 9. Furthermore, students often attend the same school for Grades 4
through 6, moving to a different school for Grades 7–9. We moreover selected Grades
4–6 because we wanted to study a more homogeneous group of students. In Table 1,
descriptive statistics for students reporting cyberbullying are presented, divided by
grade and gender.
As shown in Table 1, fewer boys report experiencing cyberbullying, especially in
Grade 6. The reasons why greater numbers of girls report experiencing cyberbullying
will be further elaborated in this study. Further demographic background variables
including socioeconomic status or ethnicity were not available in the data.

Materials and procedure

As previously noted, we examined the students who indicated that they had experi-
enced cyberbullying, based on the following question: Have you experienced cyberbully-
ing in the past few months? Students were given four alternatives: (1) I have not

Table 1. Number of participants in each grade, divided by gender.

Sex
Girls Boys Total
Grade 4 78 (69.0%) 35 (31.0%) 113 (100.0%)
Grade 5 93 (69.4%) 41 (30.6%) 134 (100.0%)
Grade 6 81 (75.0%) 27 (25.0%) 108 (100.0%)
Total 252 (71.0%) 103 (29.0%) 355 (100.0%)
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

experienced cyberbullying in the past few months, (2) Yes, I have experienced differ-
ent things online, but it was just in a friendly way, (3) Yes, I have experienced cyber-
bullying that hurt me somewhat, and (4) I have experienced cyberbullying that hurt
me a lot. The criterion for inclusion in our study was that students had selected
answer (3) or (4).
Before students answered the question about experiencing cyberbullying, they
needed to read an explanation of cyberbullying. This explanation was largely the
same as the definition preceding the items concerning traditional bullying. However,
the explanation of cyberbullying, which follows, may have made students more aware
of what cyberbullying is: With cyberbullying we mean hurtful and offensive acts done
through computers, cell phones (smartphones), and gaming devices connected to the
Internet. There are many forms of what we call cyberbullying. It can be repeated nasty
messages, comments, images, videos on your phone or computer, but it can also be com-
ments on various Internet sites (such as Facebook) when you are online. There may also
be people who, against your will or without asking you, reveal information on blogs or
sites or post pictures or videos of you. In some cases, other people appear as or pretend
to be you online, stealing your login and password for sites you visit. Some may persuade
you to promote or say mean things about others online. We would like to know more
about this and how common it is. Please answer the following questions. Remember that
you are anonymous.
To complete the survey, all students logged in to the Olweus International AS data-
base with their unique password generated by their school. Students completed the
questionnaire in a controlled test situation managed by a teacher. The school col-
lected ethical consent from students’ parents or guardians. The authors were granted
permission, both by the schools and Olweus International AS, to use the data for
research purposes.

Measures and covariates

In order to investigate the relationship between cyberbullying and verbal, physical,
and relational bullying, two instruments measuring these types of bullying were used.
While the instrument measuring forms of traditional bullying has previously been used
in many countries, the cyberbullying instrument was first used in 2014, in Sweden.
The traditional Olweus instrument uses a Likert-based scale, where students esti-
mate how often they have experienced bullying. The response scale ranges from 1–5,
where 1 is ‘not during the last month’ and 5 is ‘several times a week’. Very few stu-
dents reported experiencing bulling several times a week, so this rating was collapsed
with the fourth alternative, ‘about once a week’.
The cyberbullying instrument was developed by Englund (2014) and has been used
in previous evaluations of cyberbullying as well as in a number of reports.
The cyberbullying scale is based on dichotomous items where students simply indicate
whether they have experienced cyberbullying in various ways.
In Tables 2 and 3, the items of the verbal, physical, relational, and cyberbullying
scales are presented, along with descriptive statistics.
8 S. JOHANSSON AND G. ENGLUND

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the cyberbullying variables.

N Min Max Mean SD
Someone has sent me messages and I 355 0 1 .32 .47
don’t know if the purpose was to insult
me (messages)
Someone has sent me insulting 355 0 1 .49 .50
messages (messages2)
Rumours about me have been spread on 355 0 1 .22 .42
the Internet (rumours)
There have been comments about my 355 0 1 .22 .41
looks on the Internet (comments)
I have been excluded from web pages or 355 0 1 .09 .29
social media groups (webpages)
I have told something to someone or sent 355 0 1 .10 .30
pictures to someone who, against my
will, spread them further (pictures)
Someone has stolen my 355 0 1 .16 .37
password (password)
Others have commented on my 355 0 1 .06 .24
sexuality (sexuality)
Pictures or videos have been distributed to 355 0 1 .06 .24
hurt my feelings (pics n vid)

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the traditional bullying variables.

N Min Max Mean SD
Verbal
I have been called names and unpleasant things [Names] 348 1 4 2.03 1.05
I have been bullied because of my colour [Racism] 343 1 4 1.45 0.85
I have been bullied by comments with sexual connotations [Sexuality] 341 1 4 1.49 0.84
Physical
I have been forced to do things that I did not want to do [Forced] 342 1 4 1.45 0.82
I have been kicked and punched [Beaten] 347 1 4 1.59 0.92
Money or other things have been stolen from me [Stolen] 349 1 4 1.33 0.64
Relational
Other students have spread false rumours about me [Rumours] 351 1 4 2.06 1.01
I have been ostracised from a group of friends [Ostracised] 349 1 4 1.88 1.00
I have been bullied in other ways [Other] 323 1 4 1.76 1.07

As can be seen in Table 2 above, the mean values report proportions. It should be
noted that it is not very common for students in Grades 4–6 to be subjected to com-
ments about their sexuality or to have pictures of them distributed on the Internet.
These are more common in the later grades, however. In Grades 4–6 it seems more
common that cyberbullying entails sending insulting messages. The traditional bully-
ing scale was divided into three dimensions: verbal, physical, and relational bullying.
For the item ‘bullied in other ways’, students could also answer an open-ended ques-
tion. In general, students wrote how they had experienced bullying; these reports
often concerned relational aspects of bullying, such as being the subject of gossip.
A Kuder–Richardson scale reliability analysis showed an estimate of 0.53 for the
cyberbullying scale. The low a value of the cyberbullying scale suggested that stu-
dents experience cyberbullying in different ways and that another approach should be
taken than just computing mean or summed scales. In addressing the association
between the two constructs of bullying, a latent variable approach was suggested.
A number of explanatory variables were used in the present study. Gender was
used to address whether boys and girls experience bullying in different ways. As
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 9

an extension to the Olweus survey, items intended to measure anxiety were pre-
sented to the students. The anxiety scale was developed by Englund (2014) in col-
laboration with psychologists at Olweus international. The anxiety scale has been
optional in the Olweus bullying survey in Sweden 2014–2018. The students were
presented with nine statements indicating anxiety (e.g. ‘Sometimes I am sleepless
at night thinking a lot’), and if they experienced this type of anxiety they should
simply tick a box; this was coded ‘1’. If a student did not experience this anxiety,
he or she did not tick the box, and this answer was coded ‘0’. The summed scale
obtained values from 0 to 6, indicating that no student ticked the box for every
statement. The KR-20 test showed a value of 0.75 for a summed scale, which can
be considered adequate. The nine items from which the summed scale was com-
puted are presented in Table 4.
A variable measuring number of friends in the class was also used as a pre-
dictor of being bullied. This measure is included in the international version of the
Olweus questionnaire and was located at the beginning of the questionnaire,
where questions regarding traditional bullying were found. The variables we use as
explanatory are presented in Table 5.
Moreover, only 6% of the bullied students report that they do not have any friends
in their class, and as the mean value suggests, many students have several friends in
their class; 65% indicate having four or more friends. The levels of anxiety are gener-
ally low in our sample. About 34% report not being anxious at all. Furthermore, we
note an overrepresentation of girls (71%).

Methods of analysis
The main analytical methods in this study were CFA and SEM. The primary purpose of
CFA is to determine the number and nature of latent variables or factors (Brown,
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the items in the anxiety scale.
N Min Max Mean SD
I feel more anxious or afraid when someone wants to talk to me 355 0 1 0.28 0.45
I am truant, and I think the cause is bullying 355 0 1 0.06 0.24
I don’t talk so openly anymore with people I know 355 0 1 0.19 0.39
I don’t trust others as I did before 355 0 1 0.33 0.47
I am sometimes sleepless at night thinking a lot 355 0 1 0.24 0.43
I feel uncomfortable when I get messages on my phone 355 0 1 0.19 0.39
I feel uncomfortable when the phone rings 355 0 1 0.08 0.28
I feel uncomfortable when I am on the Internet or online in a group 355 0 1 0.10 0.30
I am more reserved nowadays 355 0 1 0.14 0.35

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the explanatory variables.

Boys % Girls % Total
103 29 252 71 355
Gender N Min Max Mean SD
Number of friends in class (five 353 1 5 3.88 1.25
alternatives) (1 ¼ no one; 2 ¼ 1
friend; 3 ¼ 2 or 3 friends; 4 ¼ 4 or 5
friends; 5 ¼ 6 or more friends)
Level of anxiety 355 0 6 1.68 1.97
10 S. JOHANSSON AND G. ENGLUND

2006). One particular advantage of the use of SEM is the possibility it affords for speci-
fying relations between latent variables, where variables can be either dependent or
independent. Strength of latent variables is that they are said to be free from meas-
urement error. In regression analysis or correlation with manifest variables, error is
included in the analysis, while with the use of latent variables the error is extracted in
the form of a residual. This has been shown to be a very powerful approach in exam-
ining relations between psychological constructs (e.g. Kline, 2016).
Previous studies that have focussed on the relationship between dimensions of
cyberbullying and traditional bullying have expressed the association between single
items in terms of percentages. In the current study, we aim to capture the constructs
of bullying more holistically and thereafter to explore the correlations and relations
with other variables. First, latent variables were fitted to reflect dimensions of trad-
itional bullying (verbal, physical, and relational). In the same way, a measurement
model was estimated for cyberbullying, where a latent variable was created (Cyber)
and designed to measure the cyberbullying construct as a whole. Thereafter, these
constructs were related by means of SEM. A correlation analysis to address the associ-
ation between the construct was first conducted. Several steps then followed in the
modelling process. In Model 1 (see Table 6), gender, friends, and anxiety were related
to the different bullying factors, respectively. In this initial step, we ran simple regres-
sions, meaning that we did not account for variation in all variables; we were, rather,
exploring the effects of the different independent variables on bullying factors.
Thereafter followed a series of models where the exploratory variables were intro-
duced one at the time. The changes in the correlations between the bullying con-
structs were observed. The final model is depicted in Figure 3.
All of the models in the present study were fitted with the Mplus 8 programme
(Muth en & Muthen, 1998–2018). The proportion of missing data was very small, mostly
due to the fact that we selected those students who had experienced cyberbullying.
Most of the items had response rates well above 90%. However, to take advantage of
all available information, the Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimator in
Mplus was used.
As regards the model fit, there are many recommendations about what fit indices
are to be reported and which cut-offs are to be used. Several researchers state, how-
ever, that there are no golden rules or explicit cut-off values and that one should not
reject a model without careful examination (Bentler, 2007; Goffin, 2007; Markland,
2007). In the analyses in this article, the most commonly used indices provided by
Mplus (v2, CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR) are reported.

Results
The first step of the analyses was to fit the measurement models of traditional bully-
ing and cyberbullying to the data. The two constructs each comprised nine items. In
Figure 1 the models are presented, along with model fit indices.
In the case of cyberbullying, we specified the variables as categorical in Mplus. The
WLSLV estimator was thus used, and the factor loadings are based on tetrachoric cor-
relations. Applying this technique has been shown to produce unbiased estimates
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 11

messages messages2 rumours comments webpages pictures password sexuality pics n vid

.37 (.09) .26 (.08) .70 (.07) .60 (.08) .77 (.09) .76 (.11) .42 (.11) .36 (.14) .27 (.18)

Cyberbullying

Figure 1. Cyberbullying factor. Standard errors are in parentheses. All loadings are significant at p
<.05 unless otherwise stated. Model fit: v2 ¼ 33.85, df ¼ 27, RMSEA ¼ 0.027 90% CI ¼
0.00–0.052, CFI ¼ 0.96, WRMR ¼ 0.76.

(Li, 2016). The model obtained an excellent fit. As can be seen, the factor loading for
‘Pics n Vid’ was not significant. Therefore, this item was excluded from further analy-
ses. In general, the other factor loadings vary somewhat but are at an acceptable level
(although it should be noted that the messages items do not contribute substantially
to the construct).
The items for verbal, physical, and relational bullying were measured on a continu-
ous scale. The measurement models for these three dimensions were just-identified,
thus obtaining a perfect fit. Verbal, physical, and relational bullying were likely to be
highly interrelated, not least since the items appeared in the same place on the ques-
tionnaire and used the same scale, which was not the case for cyberbullying. The
three constructs were included in the same CFA, with correlations between them. This
model was shown to produce a close fit to the data. The factor loadings are fairly
high and even, indicating that the constructs of traditional bullying have been opera-
tionalised in a satisfactory way. The model is presented in Figure 2.

Differences between bullying constructs

The first research question addresses how the bullying constructs overlap.
Consequently, the cyberbullying factor was introduced to the previous model. The fit
of this model was deemed acceptable (v2 ¼ 152.22, df ¼ 113, RMSEA ¼ 0.031, 90% CI
¼ 0.017–0.043. CFI ¼ 0.94, TLI ¼ 0.93). The correlation between cyberbullying and the
three other constructs of bullying varied quite remarkably. Relational bullying and
cyberbullying were highly related (.69), which indicates that the two constructs tap
into similar dimensions. The relation between cyberbullying and physical bullying was
moderate (.37), whereas cyberbullying and verbal bullying had a moderate to strong
12 S. JOHANSSON AND G. ENGLUND

names sexuality racism beaten stolen forced ostracized rumors other

.69 (.04) .66 (.05) .62 (.06) .69 (.05) .60 (.05) .73 (.05) .63 (.05) .64 (.05) .78 (.03)

Verbal Physical Relational

.93 (.06) .85 (.05)

.92 (.05)

Figure 2. Verbal, physical, and relational bullying. All loadings are significant at p < .05. Standard
errors are in parentheses. Model fit: v2 ¼ 43.886, df ¼ 24, CFI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.048, CI ¼
0.024–0.071, SRMR ¼ 0.033.

Table 6. Simple SEM regression for covariates on cyber-, physical, verbal, and relational bullying.
Cyber Anxiety Gender Friends
Cyber 1.00 .63 (.07) –.16 (.08) –.30 (.06)
Physical .37 (.08) .29 (.05) .06 (.06) –.26 (.05)
Verbal .49 (.08) .42 (.05) .05 (.06) –.30 (.05)
Relational .70 (.08) .53 (.05) –.15 (.07) –.42 (.05)
v2/df 152.22/113 186.857/126 170.042/126 183.05/126
RMSEA 0.031 CI ¼ 0.017–0.043. 0.037 CI ¼ 0.025–0.048 0.031 CI ¼ 0.018–0.043 0.036 CI ¼ 0.024–0.47
CFI 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.92
TLI 0.93 0.90 0.92 0.90
Standard errors are in parentheses.
p < .05.

association (.49). The varying correlations indicate plausible differences in the factors’
relations with other variables. To better describe the characteristics of the four bullying
factors, we introduced a number of explanatory variables. The estimates for the differ-
ent models are presented in Table 6. As regards to student gender, we did not note
any gender differences for physical and verbal bullying; however, for cyberbullying
and relational bullying, the estimates were significant although rather modest. The
negative relation indicates that girls experience more relational bullying and cyberbul-
lying. For ‘number of friends’, all relations are negative and significant. For relational
bullying the estimate is –.42, indicating that those with fewer friends clearly experi-
ence a higher degree of relational bullying. Regarding the variable ‘anxiety’, cyberbul-
lied students report a high level of anxiousness. The standardised regression
coefficient revealed a relationship of 0.63.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 13

-.17 (.05)

-.25 (.05)

Gender Friends Anxiety

.13(.06) -.21(.06) -.31(.05) .45 (.05)

-.39(.06)

.57 (.06)
.12 (.05)

-.21 (.06)
-.15 (.07)

.25 (.06)

Physical Verbal Relational Cyberbullying

bullying bullying bullying
.85 (.04)
.94 (.04) .52(.14)

.85 (.06) .32 (.10)

.24 (.10)

Figure 3. Relationships between cyberbullying and traditional bullying, and the independent varia-
bles. Standard regression coefficients are presented along with their standard errors. Dotted lines
indicate non-significant relationships. p is <.05. Model fit: v2 ¼ 209.234, df ¼ 152, CFI ¼ 0.93,
RMSEA ¼ 0.033, CI ¼ 0.021–0.043.

In the next step, we introduced the independent variables one at a time in a MIMIC
model. We started with gender and controlled for anxiety levels. Not surprisingly, the
association between relational bullying and cyberbullying did not hold across gender.
Given the same anxiety level, girls and boys did experience relational bullying and
cyberbullying to a similar degree. However, boys tended to experience more verbal
and physical bullying while keeping anxiety under control. When we next introduced
‘number of friends’, we noted only small changes in the estimates of anxiety. The esti-
mates of anxiety in all types of bullying decrease somewhat as the number of friends
increases, indicating that an increasing number of friends may somewhat reduce anx-
iety levels. The estimates for ‘number of friends’ are all negative, implying that stu-
dents experience more cyberbullying when they have fewer friends. The full model,
along with standardised regression coefficients, standard errors, and model fit, is pre-
sented in Figure 3.
Furthermore, it may be noted from Figure 3 that the correlation between the types
of bullying decreases when the explanatory variables are introduced. It becomes more
14 S. JOHANSSON AND G. ENGLUND

explicit that cyberbullying is somewhat different from verbal and physical bullying
when the effects of covariates have been taken into account. However, the relation
between cyberbullying and relational bullying is still quite high when covariates
are controlled.

Discussion
The overall aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between cyberbully-
ing and the constructs of verbal, physical, and relational bullying. In particular, we
focussed on the cyberbullying construct and its relation to the traditional types of bul-
lying. Measured by latent variables, cyberbullying showed moderate to high relation
to the traditional forms of bullying. Relational bullying had the highest association
with cyberbullying, with an estimate of 0.69. In light of the similarities found between
the cyberbullying and relational bullying, one may note that they also had similar rela-
tions with all covariates. Previous research suggests that perpetrators’ relational and
cyber aggression share common characteristics and do not differ in terms of personal-
ity traits (e.g. Kokkinos & Voulgaridou, 2017). It may, therefore, be likely that cyberbul-
lying operates in a similar fashion as relational bullying—which may have similar and
severe consequences for those who are bullied. For example, Chester et al. (2017)
found that relational bullying was the form of traditional bullying that had the most
negative effects on English adolescents’ (aged 11–15) self-ratings of health-related
quality of life. It thus appears to be of critical importance for school leaders and teach-
ers to ensure awareness within their organisation that bullying will often have several
dimensions and that the signs and consequences of cyberbullying might be very simi-
lar to those of relational bullying.
In Scandinavia, school practitioners perceive cyberbullying as the most problematic
school bullying issue. One reason for this may be that the behaviour is not obvious to
school staff, as may be the case with traditional bullying. In an overview by Ulriksen
and Knapstad (2016), it was found that none of the traditional bullying interventions
tested could provide solutions for reducing cyberbullying. As has been suggested, for
example, by Olweus (2012), most cyberbullied students are exposed to traditional bul-
lying as well. Our study indicates, however, that there are fairly large differences
between different types of traditional bullying and cyberbullying. While physical and
verbal bullying are only moderately associated with the cyberbullying construct, rela-
tional bullying shows a substantial relation. As relational bullying is easier for teachers
to track than cyberbullying, such behaviour should lead teachers and schools to be
extra vigilant about students’ online activities.
In general, the four types of bullying had similar relations to student gender, anx-
iety levels, and number of friends. Cyberbullied students, however, had clearly higher
levels of anxiety, especially as compared to those subjected to verbal and physical bul-
lying. These results are well in line with those found in the meta-analysis on cyberbul-
lying by Kowalski et al. (2014). The 24/7 accessibility of online environments and the
fact that thousands of people can view insulting posts online may be two reasons
that cyberbullied students feel a high degree of anxiety. Only minor gender differen-
ces were found for the different bullying types. In spite of this, one may note that the
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15

coping strategies of cyberbullied boys and girls may vary; whereas boys say that they
‘don’t care’, girls react more through withdrawal, introversion, and the avoidance of
social contacts (Berne et al., 2014).
Furthermore, the number of friends was negatively related to all types of bullying,
but most so to cyberbullying. This might appear surprising in the light of the results
found by Wang et al. (2009) suggesting no relation between the number of friends
and cyberbullying. However, as Campbell et al. (2013) have demonstrated, cyberbullied
students have more social difficulties and these results tend to correspond well with
those in the present study. The importance of having good friends must be under-
scored, as it has also been demonstrated that bullied students with some friends have
better measures of mental health than their counterparts with fewer friends (e.g.
Bjereld, 2017).

Limitations and outlook

The current study has limitations. The first of these regards the measurement of the
cyberbullying scale. The scale was included at the very end of the questionnaire,
which meant that some students may have been experiencing response fatigue when
arriving at these questions. However, the missing data amounted to only 15%.
Immediately preceding the questions about cyberbullying, there was an introductory
text which was somewhat different in character from that preceding the traditional
bullying scale. This might have caused some issues as regards comparability. Further,
the scales for cyberbullying and traditional bullying were different, in that for cyber-
bullying the students indicated experience on a dichotomous scale (Y/N), while for the
traditional bullying scale they considered how frequently they were bullied, using a 5-
point scale. To render the measures more comparable and to address the measure-
ment error of the two scales, we used a latent variable approach.
While it is a great challenge for schools to prevent cyberbullying, we think that
there are some opportunities and good examples to learn from. To follow-up students
who are ostracised from a group of friends may be particularly important in prevent-
ing cyberbullying. We have noted some cities in Sweden where schools, in an effort to
increase teachers’ awareness of what students do online, introduced workshops in
which students, parents, and teachers discuss their relation to students’ online lives.
One example of a Swedish initiative is the advice to evaluate what Internet arenas
(including apps and social media platforms) are currently most popular among stu-
dents. By giving students the responsibility to present their findings about popular
Internet arenas and by letting teachers and parents contribute their knowledge about
rules and use, increased knowledge can be mutually developed.
While there is still much to be discovered about cyberbullying, we think that there
are ample opportunities for teachers and others to understand its characteristics and
relationship to traditional forms of bullying.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
16 S. JOHANSSON AND G. ENGLUND

ORCID
Stefan Johansson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2051-7248

References
Antoniadou, N., & Kokkinos, C. M. (2015). Cyber and school bullying: Same or different phenom-
ena? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.09.013
Antoniadou, N., Kokkinos, C. M., & Fanti, K. A. (2019). Traditional and cyber bullying/victimization
among adolescents: Examining their psychosocial profile through latent profile analysis.
International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1(2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-
00010-0
Bauman, S., & Newman, M. L. (2013). Testing assumptions about cyberbullying: Perceived dis-
tress associated with acts of conventional and cyber bullying. Psychology of Violence, 3(1),
27–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029867
Beckman, L. (2013). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying among Swedish adolescents. Gender dif-
ferences and association with mental health [Doctoral dissertation]. https://www.diva-portal.
org/smash/get/diva2:639930/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and
Individual Differences, 42(5), 825–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024
Berne, S., Frisen, A., & Kling, J. (2014). Appearance-related cyberbullying: A qualitative investiga-
tion of characteristics, content, reasons, and effects. Body Image, 11(4), 527–533. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.08.006
Bjereld, Y. (2017). If they only knew. Bullying victimization among children and youth in the
Nordic countries [Doctoral dissertation]. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/52229
Breivik, K., Bru, E., Hancock, C., Idsøe, E. C., Idsøe, T., & Solberg, M. E. (2017). Å bli utsatt for mob-
bing. En kunnskapsoppsummering om konsekvenser og tiltak. [To be bullied: A review of the lit-
erature about consequences and preventions]. Laeringsmiljøsenteret.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.
Campbell, M. A., Slee, P. T., Spears, B., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2013). Do cyberbullies suffer too?
Cyberbullies’ perceptions of the harm they cause to others and to their own mental health.
School Psychology International, 34(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034313479698
Chang, F. -C., Lee, C. -M., Chiu, C. -H., Hsi, W. -Y., Huang, T. -F., & Pan, Y. -C. (2013). Relationships
among cyberbullying, school bullying, and mental health in Taiwanese adolescents. The
Journal of School Health, J Sch Health, 83(6), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12050
23586891
Chester, K. L., Spencer, N. H., Whiting, L., & Brooks, F. M. (2017). Association between experienc-
ing relational bullying and adolescent health-related quality of life. The Journal of School
Health, 87(11), 865–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12558
Chen, L. M., Cheng, W., & Ho, H.-C. (2015). Perceived severity of school bullying in elementary
schools based on participants’ roles. Educational Psychology, 35(4), 484–496. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01443410.2013.860220
Englund, G. (2014). Na €tmobbning: Om relationen mellan traditionell mobbning och na €tmobbning i
grundskolan [Cyberbullying: On the relationship between traditional bullying and cyberbully-
ing in compulsory school] [Master thesis]. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/37725
Farrington, D. P., Lo €sel, F., Ttofi, M. M., Theodorakis, N. (2012). School bullying, depression and
offending behavior later in life. An updated systematic review of longitudinal studies. http://
www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/publications/archive/publications/2012-06-11-school-bul-
lying-depression-and-offending-behaviour-later-in-life.html
Findahl, O. (2014). Svenskarna och Internet [The Swedes and the internet]. The Internet foundation
in Sweden. https://www.iis.se/docs/SOI2014.pdf.
Frisen, A., & Berne, S. (2016). Na €tmobbning. En handbok fo €r skolan. [Cyberbullying. A handbook for
the school]. Natur och Kultur.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 17

Goffin, R. D. (2007). Assessing the adequacy of structural equation models: Golden rules and edi-
torial policies. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 831–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2006.09.019
Hellfeldt, K., Gill, P. E., & Johansson, B. (2018). Longitudinal analysis of links between bullying vic-
timization and psychosomatic maladjustment in Swedish schoolchildren. Journal of School
Violence, 17(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2016.1222498
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to
offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01639620701457816
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Neither an epidemic nor a rarity. European
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 539–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.
706448
Karlsen, F. (2016). Onlinespel och problemspelande. [Online gaming]. In Daneback, K & Sorbring,
E. (Eds.), Socialt arbete och internet (pp. 90–102). Liber.
Kokkinos, C. M., & Voulgaridou, I. (2017). Relational and cyber aggression among adolescents:
Personality and emotion regulation as moderators. Computers in Human Behavior, 68,
528–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.046
Kowalski, M., Limber, S. P., & Agaston, P. W. (2012). Cyberbullying–bullying in the digital age (2nd
ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital
age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological
Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford
Press.
Ladd, G. W., Ettekal, I., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2017). Peer victimization trajectories from kin-
dergarten through high school: Differential pathways for children’s school engagement and
achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 826–841. https://doi.org/10.1037/
edu0000177
Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Hymel, S., Olson, B. F., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.004
Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum like-
lihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
Limber, S. P., Olweus, D., Wang, W., Masiello, M., & Breivik, K. (2018). Evaluation of the Olweus
bullying prevention program: A large scale study of U.S. students in grades 3–11. Journal of
School Psychology, 69, 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.04.004
Markland, D. (2007). The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary on Paul
Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modelling.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 851–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.
023
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2018). Mplus user’s guide. Muthen & Muthen.
Olweus, D. (1991). Mobbning i skolan –vad vi vet och kan go €ra. [Bullying in school: what we know
and can do]. Liber.
Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some critical issues. In S. R.
Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An inter-
national perspective (pp. 9–33). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 520–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.682358
Olweus, D. (2017). Cyberbullying: A critical overview. In B. J. Bushman (Ed.), Aggression and vio-
lence. A social psychological perspective (pp. 225–240). Routledge.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2018). Some problems with cyberbullying research. Current Opinion
in Psychology, 19, 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012
18 S. JOHANSSON AND G. ENGLUND

Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchan, J. A., Genta, M. L., Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Smith, P. K.,
Thompson, F., & Tippett, N. (2012). The emotional impact of bullying and cyberbullying on
victims: A European cross-national study. Aggressive Behavior, 38(5), 342–356. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ab.21440
Rigby, K. (2008). Children and bullying. How parents and educators can reduce bullying at school.
Blackwell Publishing.
Salmivalli, C., & Po€yho€nen, V. (2012). Cyberbullying in Finland. In Q. Li, D. Cross, & P. K. Smith
(Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground (pp. 57–72). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781119954484.ch4
Slonje, R. (2011). The nature of cyberbullying in Swedish schools: Processes, feelings of remorse by
bullies, impact on victims and age- and gender differences [Doctoral dissertation]. http://
research.gold.ac.uk/6568
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisen, A. (2012). Processes of cyberbullying, and feelings of remorse by
bullies: A pilot study. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 244–259. https://
doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.643670
Smith, P. K. (2013). School bullying. Sociologia Problemas e Pra ticas, 71, 81–98.
Smith, P. K. (2014). Understanding school bullying: Its nature and prevention strategies. SAGE.
Takizawa, R., Maughan, B., & Arseneault, L. (2014). Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying
victimization: Evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. The American jour-
nal of psychiatry, 171(7), 777–784. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13101401
Ulriksen, R., Knapstad, M. (2016). Digital mobbing. Kunnskapsoversikt over forskning på effekter av
tiltak [Cyberbullying. Review of the research on effects of preventions] (Research report 2016:
3). Norwegian Institute for Public Health. https://www.fhi.no/globalassets/migrering/doku-
menter/pdf/digital-mobbing-pdf.pdf
United Nations. (2016). Violence against children. Tackling bullying from the schoolyard to the
cyberspace. http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/2016/End%20bullying/bul-
lyingreport.pdf
Urbanski, J., & Riese, J. (2016). Bullying in US 2014: Status report [Paper presentation]. 2016
Cyberbullying conference: A challenge for researchers and practitioners. Centre for School
Development, Gothenburg.
Wang, J., & Iannotti, R. J. (2012). Bullying among U.S. adolescents. The Prevention Researcher,
19(3), 3–6.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United
States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368–375.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). The overlap between cyberbullying and traditional bul-
lying. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(5), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.
2014.12.002
Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in internet harassment
and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. The Journal of Adolescent Health,
41(6 Suppl 1), S42–S50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.004
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A com-
parison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and
Allied Disciplines, 45(7), 1308–1316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00328.x