Prevalence and Predictors of Internet Bullying

Williams, Kirk R.; Guerra, Nancy G.

doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.018

Cited by 772 publications

(646 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

524

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bullying and Cyberbullying 9 9 Although c-bullying in adolescents is less common than t-bullying (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007;Williams & Guerra, 2007), victims of each form of bullying experience similar psychosocial problems (Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Wolak, 2000;Ybarra, 2004). Studies in England, Canada, Australia and USA report a rate of 4%-25% of youth c-victimization and a rate of 11%-17% of c-bullying (Campbell, 2005;Li, 2006;NCH, 2005;Noret & Rivers, 2006;Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004).…”

Section: Bullying and Cyberbullying 8mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study that did examine the relationship between c-bullying and normative beliefs approving of bullying, found that the two were positively related (Williams & Guerra, 2007).…”

Section: Bullying and Cyberbullying 8mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Raskauskas & Stoltz found that students' role in t-bullying predicted the same role in c-bullying, and moreover, being a t-bully was associated with c-victimization. T-victims were not found to be c-bullies.One study that did examine the relationship between c-bullying and normative beliefs approving of bullying, found that the two were positively related (Williams & Guerra, 2007).The same was found for verbal and physical bullying leading the authors to suggest that c-bullying and t-bullying share common predictors. However, involvement in t-bullying was assessed using only three items and in c-bullying using only one item, thus the findings may have limited reliability and generalisability.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies

Pornari

Wood

2009

Aggressive Behavior

434

287

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the relationship between cognitive mechanisms applied by people to rationalize and justify harmful acts, and engagement in traditional and cyber bullying among school children. We examined the contribution of Moral Disengagement (MD), Hostile Attribution Bias, and Outcome Expectancies and we further explored the individual contribution of each MD mechanism. Our aim was to identify shared and unique cognitive factors of the two forms of bullying. Three hundred and thirty nine secondary school children completed self-report measures that assessed MD, Hostile Attribution Bias, Outcome Expectancies, and their roles and involvement in traditional and cyber bullying. We found that MD total score positively related to both forms of bullying. Furthermore, traditional bullying positively related to children's moral justification, euphemistic language, displacement of responsibility and outcome expectancies, and negatively associated with hostile attribution bias. Moral justification also related positively to cyberbullying.Cyberbullying and cybervictimization were associated with high levels of traditional bullying and victimization, respectively. The results suggest that MD is a common feature of both traditional and cyber bullying, but it seems that traditional bullying demands a higher level of rationalisation or justification. Moreover, the data suggest that the expectation of positive outcomes from harmful behavior facilitates engagement in traditional bullying. The differential contribution of specific cognitive mechanisms indicates the need for future research to elaborate on the current findings in order to advance theory and inform existing and future antibullying school interventions. Bullying is a subtype of aggression defined as an intentional and repeated aggressive behavior by a group or individual, towards a victim who cannot readily defend himself/herself (Olweus, 1999). Smith and Sharp (1994) describe it as ''a systematic abuse of power'' (p. 2). School bullying is not rare. Various studies in different countries have reported a rate of victimization between 9% -32% and a rate of bullying between 4% -27% (Berger, 2007;Smith et al., 1999). Bullying can be physical (e.g. hitting, kicking), behavioral (e.g. stealing one's lunch,), verbal (e.g. threats, insults), and relational (e.g. exclusion from a group) (Berger). It can be direct or indirect (Underwood, 2000) and it can vary in terms of intensity, duration and motives (Tattum, 1994). In general, boys engage in more physical forms of bullying and girls in more indirect/relational bullying (Rivers & Smith, 1994;Scheitauer, 2002).Bullies and victims suffer from, and are at risk of various psychosocial problems (Card, 2003;Haynie et al., 2001;Hawker & Boulton, 2000;Nansel, Overpeck, Saluja, & Ruan, 2004;Olweus, 1999;Picket et al., 2002).Those who are both bullies and victims, otherwise called aggressive victims, are at higher risk (Duncan, 1999;Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000), because they are prone to both ...

show abstract

Section: Bullying and Cyberbullying 8mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study that did examine the relationship between c-bullying and normative beliefs approving of bullying, found that the two were positively related (Williams & Guerra, 2007).…”

Section: Bullying and Cyberbullying 8mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies

Pornari

Wood

2009

Aggressive Behavior

434

287

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These children have difficulties with forming and maintaining friendships with peers, which likely place them at risk for peer victimization since research indicates that poor peer relationships are associated with being bullied (Delfabbro et al, 2006;Forero et al, 1999;Nansel et al, 2001;Williams & Guerra, 2007). Peers play an important role in the development, maintenance, and dissolution of bullying episodes; they provide an audience for youth who bully and represent potential allies for victimized youth (O'Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers have found that boys generally tend to be victimized more than girls and that victimization peaks in the middle school years and during the transition to high school (roughly ages 12-15), decreasing thereafter (Forero, McLellan, Rissel, & Bauman, 1999;Nansel et al, 2001;Williams & Guerra, 2007). Although the severity of ASD symptoms is negatively correlated with successful social inclusion and peer relationships, even children and adolescents with high functioning ASD continue to struggle with social competence as they age (Bauminger & Kasari, 2000;Orsmond, Krauss, & Seltzer, 2004), which continues to place them at risk for bullying experiences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%