Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Cybervictimization among secondary students: social networking time, personality traits and parental education

Authors: Mónica Rodríguez-Enríquez, Miquel Bennasar-Veny, Alfonso Leiva, Maite Garaigordobil, Aina M. Yañez

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Cyberbullying among children and adolescents is a major public health concern. However, research has not yet definitively identified the risk factors associated with cybervictimization. The purpose of this study was to determine the association of cybervictimization with use of social networks, personality traits and parental education in secondary students.

Methods

The study population consisted of 765 secondary students (56.5% girls) from Majorca (Spain) who were aged 15.99 years (grade 4). The data were from the 16 secondary school centers that participated in the ITACA Project, a multi-center, cluster randomized controlled trial. Cybervictimization was measured by the Garaigordobil Cybervictimization Scale, and the Big Five Questionnaire for Children was used to assess personality traits.

Results

Results showed that 39.9% of the students were cybervictims. Univariate analysis indicated that more girls than boys were cybervictimized (43.1% vs 35.7%). Cybervictims spent more time in social networking sites than non-victims (6 h 30 min vs. 5 h 16 min) and had greater emotional instability (0.16 vs. -0.23) and extraversion (0.11 vs. -0.09) and were less conscientious (− 0.001 vs. 0.20). Multivariable analysis indicated that social networking time was not significantly associated with cybervictimization after controlling for personality traits, but the same personality traits remained significantly associated.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that cyberbullying is a frequent and relevant problem in adolescents. Big Five personality traits are related with cybervictimization. Possible ways to design interventions include promoting social leisure activities, encourage responsible attitudes and provide stress coping tools.
Literature
1.
2.
Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tippett N. Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49(4):376–85.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Ferrara P, Ianniello F, Villani A, Corsello G. Cyberbullying a modern form of bullying: let's talk about this health and social problem. Ital J Pediatr. 2018;44(1):14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
van Geel M, Vedder P, Tanilon J. Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(5):435–42.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Athanasiou K, Melegkovits E, Andrie EK, Magoulas C, Tzavara CK, Richardson C, Greydanus D, Tsolia M, Tsitsika AK. Cross-national aspects of cyberbullying victimization among 14-17-year-old adolescents across seven European countries. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):800.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Garaigordobil M. Cyberbullying in adolescents and youth in the Basque Country: prevalence of cybervictims, cyberaggressors, and cyberobservers. J Youth Stud. 2015;18:569–82.CrossRef
7.
Kessel Schneider S, O'Donnell L, Smith E. Trends in Cyberbullying and school bullying victimization in a regional census of high school students, 2006-2012. J Sch Health. 2015;85(9):611–20.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychol Bull. 2014;140(4):1073–137.PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
Slonje R, Smith PK. Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying? Scand J Psychol. 2008;49(2):147–54.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Cassidy W, Jackson M, Brown K. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how pixels hurt me? Sch Psychol Int. 2009;30:382–402.CrossRef
12.
Tokunaga RS. Following you home from school: a critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Comp Hum Beahv. 2010;26(3):277–87.CrossRef
13.
Kowalski RM, Limber SP. Electronic bullying among middle school students. J Adolesc Health. 2007;41(6 Suppl 1):S22–30.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Wang J, Iannotti RJ, Nansel TR. School bullying among adolescents in the United States: physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45(4):368–75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Sourander A, Brunstein Klomek A, Ikonen M, Lindroos J, Luntamo T, Koskelainen M, Ristkari T, Helenius H. Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents: a population-based study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(7):720–8.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Griezel L, Finger LR, Bodkin-Andrews GH, Graven RG, Yeung AS. Uncovering the structure of and gender and developmental differences in cyber bullying. J Educ Res. 2012;105(6):442–55.CrossRef
17.
Dilmac B. Psychological needs as a predictor of cyber bullying: a preliminary report on college students. Educ Sci-Theor Pract. 2009;9(3):1307–25.
18.
Artz S, Kassis W, Moldenhauer S. Rethinking indirect aggression: the end of the mean girl myth. Vict Offerder. 2013;8:308–28.CrossRef
19.
Läftman SB, Modin B, Östberg V. Cyberbullying and subjective health a large-scale study of students in Stockholm, Sweden. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2013;35:112–9.CrossRef
20.
Akbulut Y, Sahin YL, Bahadir E. Cyberbullying victimization among Turkish online social utility members. J Educ Technol Soc. 2010;13:192–201.
21.
Erdur-Baker Ö. Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media Soc. 2010;12:109–25.CrossRef
22.
Aricak T, Siyahhan S, Uzunhasanoglu A, Saribeyoglu S, Ciplak S, Yilmaz N, Memmedov C. Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents. CyberPsychol Behav. 2008;11(3):253–61.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Ybarra ML, Diener-West M, Leaf PJ. Examining the overlap in internet harassment and school bullying: implications for school intervention. J Adolesc Health. 2007;41(6 Suppl 1):S42–50.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ. Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: a comparison of associated youth characteristics. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004;45(7):1308–16.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Tennant JE, Demaray MK, Coyle S, Malecki CK. The dangers of the web: Cybervictimization, depression, and social support in college students. Comp Hum Beahv. 2015;50:348–57.CrossRef
26.
Shin N, Ahn H. Factors affecting Adolescents' involvement in Cyberbullying: what divides the 20% from the 80%? Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2015;18(7):393–9.PubMedCrossRef
27.
28.
Gamez-Guadix M, Orue I, Smith PK, Calvete E. Longitudinal and reciprocal relations of cyberbullying with depression, substance use, and problematic internet use among adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(4):446–52.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Hemphill SA, Heerde JA. Adolescent predictors of young adult cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among Australian youth. J Adolesc Health. 2014;55(4):580–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Garaigordobil M. Psychometric properties of the Cyberbullying test, a screening instrument to measure Cybervictimization, Cyberaggression, and Cyberobservation. J Interpers Violence. 2017;32(23):3556–76.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Alonso C, Romero E. Aggressors and victims in bullying and Cyberbullying: a study of personality profiles using the five-factor model. Span J Psychol. 2017;20:E76.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Leiva A, Estela A, Torrent M, Calafat A, Bennasar M, Yanez A. Effectiveness of a complex intervention in reducing the prevalence of smoking among adolescents: study design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:373.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Rodriguez-Enriquez M, Bennasar-Veny M, Leiva A, Yanez AM: Alcohol and Tobacco Consumption, Personality, and Cybervictimization among Adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, 16(17).PubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Carrasco MA, Holgado FP, Del Barrio MV. Big five questionnaire dimensions in Spanish children (BFQ-C). Psicothema. 2005;17(2):275–80.
35.
Barbaranelli C, Fida R, Paciello M, Di Giunta L, Capara GV. Assessing personality in early adolescence through self-report and other-ratings a multitrait-multimethod analysis of the BFQ-C. Pers Indiv Dif. 2008;44(4):876–86.CrossRef
36.
Beckman L, Hagquist C, Hellström L. Discrepant gender patterns for cyberbullying and traditional bullying—an analysis of Swedish adolescent data. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(5):1896–903.CrossRef
37.
Sampasa-Kanyinga H, Hamilton HA. Use of social networking sites and risk of Cyberbullying victimization: a population-level study of adolescents. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2015;18(12):704–10.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Sampasa-Kanyinga H, Roumeliotis P, Xu H. Associations between cyberbullying and school bullying victimization and suicidal ideation, plans and attempts among Canadian schoolchildren. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e102145.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Werner NE, Bumpus MF, Rock D. Involvement in internet aggression during early adolescence. J Youth Adolesc. 2010;39(6):607–19.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Amichai-Hamburger Y, Vinitzky G. Social network use and personality. Comp Hum Beahv. 2010;26:1286–95.
41.
De Bolle M, Tackett JL. Anchoring bullying and victimization in children within a five-factor model-based person-Centred framework. Eur J Pers. 2013;27(3):280–9.CrossRef
42.
Mitsopoulou E, Giovazolias T. Personality traits, empathy and bullying behaviour: a meta-analytic approach. Aggress Violent Behav. 2015;21:61–72.CrossRef
43.
Pullmann H, Raudsepp L, Ju J, Allik J. Stability and change in adolescents’ personality: a longitudinal study. Eur J Pers. 2006;20:447–59.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cybervictimization among secondary students: social networking time, personality traits and parental education
Authors
Mónica Rodríguez-Enríquez
Miquel Bennasar-Veny
Alfonso Leiva
Maite Garaigordobil
Aina M. Yañez
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7876-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Public Health 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Neck and shoulder pain among elementary school students: prevalence and its risk factors

Research article

Implementation strategy and cost of Mozambique’s HPV vaccine demonstration project

Research article

Testing verbal quantifiers for social norms messages in cancer screening: evidence from an online experiment

Research article

Using data on snus use in Sweden to compare different modelling approaches to estimate the population health impact of introducing a smoke-free tobacco product

Research article

Incidence and etiology of infectious diarrhea from a facility-based surveillance system in Guatemala, 2008–2012

Research article

Associations between self-efficacy, bullying and health-related quality of life in a school sample of adolescents: a cross-sectional study