2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106485
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An international systematic review of cyberbullying measurements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
81
0
10

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 119 publications
(93 citation statements)
references
References 81 publications
2
81
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on the prior studies conducted by the authors ( Han et al, 2017 ; Ba et al, 2019 ; Chai et al, 2020 ; Gong et al, 2020 ), the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey developed by the National Center for Education Statistics of the United States ( Lessne and Yanez, 2016 ) and the recent reviews of cyberbullying measurements ( Berne et al, 2013 ; Chun et al, 2020 ), we inquired about the involvement of the adolescents in six types of cyberbullying behaviors: mocking, spreading lousy information or rumors, posting private information, threatening others, isolating others, and faking to be others in the cyberspace. For the subjects that were being cyberbullied, we asked the question, “Have your classmates or peers implemented these actions to you since January 2020?” The six statements were “Being mocked, called bad nicknames in cyberspace, including in the social media platforms like Weibo, WeChat, QQ, Tik Tok, or through SMS (short messages) or telephone calls”; “Somebody spread bad news or rumors about you in cyberspace”; “Posted your privacy information or photos or videos in cyberspace intentionally”; “Threatened you in cyberspace in chatting rooms or through social media, SMS”; “Isolated or Excluded you in cyberspace such as online games or chatting”; and “Hacked your online account or faked as you in cyberspace and did bad things.” The original answers to these questions were “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” and “frequently,” and we recoded the “never” as not being bullied (0), the “rarely,” “sometimes,” and “frequently” as being bullied in that specific manner (1) in our analysis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Based on the prior studies conducted by the authors ( Han et al, 2017 ; Ba et al, 2019 ; Chai et al, 2020 ; Gong et al, 2020 ), the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey developed by the National Center for Education Statistics of the United States ( Lessne and Yanez, 2016 ) and the recent reviews of cyberbullying measurements ( Berne et al, 2013 ; Chun et al, 2020 ), we inquired about the involvement of the adolescents in six types of cyberbullying behaviors: mocking, spreading lousy information or rumors, posting private information, threatening others, isolating others, and faking to be others in the cyberspace. For the subjects that were being cyberbullied, we asked the question, “Have your classmates or peers implemented these actions to you since January 2020?” The six statements were “Being mocked, called bad nicknames in cyberspace, including in the social media platforms like Weibo, WeChat, QQ, Tik Tok, or through SMS (short messages) or telephone calls”; “Somebody spread bad news or rumors about you in cyberspace”; “Posted your privacy information or photos or videos in cyberspace intentionally”; “Threatened you in cyberspace in chatting rooms or through social media, SMS”; “Isolated or Excluded you in cyberspace such as online games or chatting”; and “Hacked your online account or faked as you in cyberspace and did bad things.” The original answers to these questions were “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” and “frequently,” and we recoded the “never” as not being bullied (0), the “rarely,” “sometimes,” and “frequently” as being bullied in that specific manner (1) in our analysis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the prior studies conducted by the authors (Han et al, 2017;Ba et al, 2019;Chai et al, 2020;Gong et al, 2020), the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey developed by the National Center for Education Statistics of the United States (Lessne and Yanez, 2016) and the recent reviews of cyberbullying measurements (Berne et al, 2013;Chun et al, 2020), we inquired about the involvement of the adolescents in six types of cyberbullying behaviors: mocking, spreading lousy information or rumors, posting private information, threatening others, isolating others, and faking to be others in the cyberspace. For the subjects that were being cyberbullied, we asked the question, "Have your classmates or peers implemented these actions to you since January 2020?"…”
Section: Cyberbullying Involvementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In South Korea, 19% of school-aged children experienced CBV only, and 26.9% experienced CBV/cyberbullying perpetration (CBP) [4]. Being a cyberbullying victim during adolescence has long-lasting negative impacts on psychological, physical, and behavioral adjustment and results in social problems [3,5,6]. Studies indicate that Korean adolescent cyber victims report internalized problems as major impacts of their cyberbullying experience, and suicidal ideation and behaviors are the most deleterious effects of CBV [3,7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the business magazine Forbes frequently publishes articles related to the analysis of the opinions of consumers and the community regarding different brands, government or corporate policies. Subjectivity analysis is also considered a tool in the analysis of social problems (Chun et al , 2020; Lee et al , 2018; Molina et al , 2019; Murnion et al , 2018), such as cyberbullying, abusive language, gender violence in texts or parental control. These analyses can be performed considering two main approaches, one of them based on machine learning (ML) and the other in the use of lexicons; nevertheless, the results are better when both strategies are combined (Jain and Singh, 2019; Kaur and Mangat, 2017; Medhat et al , 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%