Introduction
In recent decades there has been a progressive increase in concern and research into the problems of peer aggression, both in the educational setting and, more recently, online. This growing concern is encouragey different international institutions of reference, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), that has specifically identifieullying as one of the main health problems in adolescence (Inchley et al., 2020), as well as UNESCO, UNICEF, anECD, all stating the need to protect minors especially in the online environment (OECD, 2019; UNESCO, 2019; UNICEF, 2017). Bullying has traditionally been defined as a form of repeated aneliberate aggression, carrieut by one or several people on others with reduced ability tefend themselves (Olweus, 1993). In the case of bullying conductenline, while some authors describe cyberbullying as a type of bullying carrieut through technological means (Olweus, 2012), other experts suggest that it can be differentiated from traditionaullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013; O’Higgins Norman, 2020; Slonje at al., 2013). Although the intent to harm is the same as in the case of traditionaullying, some of the differentiating features of the online setting are the greater ease with which the perpetrator can remain anonymous and establish the power imbalance with the victim (Sticca & Perren, 2013), that one act can be spread and forwarded with no further intervention from the original author (Menesini et al., 2013), and it is more likely to reach a larger audience (Slonje & Smith, 2008). Regardless of the format in which the aggressions are carrieut, there are numerous behaviours that have been characterised as bullying, such as the spreaf rumours aneing threatener insulted. On the other hand, other behaviours are constrained to the traditional physical format, such as being pusher hit, while other are specific of the online format, like hacking a social networking account (Ortega-Ruiz at al., 2016).
Sex differences in bullying have been explored with some studies concluding that sex is not statistically associated with the probability of suffering or being a perpetrator of traditionaullying (Del Rey et al., 2016; Hartung et al., 2011) or cyberbullying (Garaigordobil & Aliri, 2013; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Larrañaga at al., 2018; Smith et al., 2008). Other studies found higher rates of traditionaullying (Romera at al., 2011) and cyberbullying (Erdur-Baker, 2010; Kasahara et al., 2019) among boys while most authors have reported that both types of bullying are more frequent among girls, especially in the role of victim (Chocarro & Garaigordobil, 2019; Golpe et al., 2017; Livingstone et al., 2011; Marcum et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2019). Further research suggests that there coule culturaifferences across countries (Athanasiou et al., 2018; Görzig & Ólafsson, 2013; Inchley et al., 2020) or a moderating influence by the sample age (Smith et al., 2019). This disparity of results could alse explainey social and individuaifferences in how sex and gender are regarded, influencing how research participants respond to questions about these variables (Foody et al., 2019), as well as how it is addressey the researchers themselves. While sex is a biological characteristic associated with physical and physiological features, gender is a social construct related to roles, behaviours, and identities associated with either sex (Coen & Banister, 2012). Sex and gender are usually binary categorised as “female” or “male”, and sometimes used in an interchangeable way due to their complex relationship (Heidari et al., 2016).
It has been suggested that gender-normative girls have a greater vested interest than gender-normative boys in maintaining friendships and resolving conflict and as such this may explain differences in how males and females experience bullying offline annline (Ging & O’Higgins Norman, 2016). Furthermore, there is research pointing out that the differences may lie in the way bullying is carrieut (Silva et al., 2013), as if there were specific behaviours more common for boys anthers for girls (Chocarro & Garaigordobil, 2019; Marcum et al., 2012; Ryoo et al., 2014). Some authors have even describeullying as a way of expressing gender identity, with boys displaying a masculine identity through direct and explicit forms of aggression, and girls expressing feminine identity through social and relational aggression (Carrera-Fernández et al., 2016; Rosen & Nofzige, 2019).
Differences between boys and girls do not seem te limitenly to how the bullying is carrieut, but can also extend to the outcomes of prevention programs. A recent meta-analysis concluded that bullying prevention programs seem te effective in reducing bullying among boys, but not girls (Kennedy, 2020a). This author also warns that these data shoule interpreted with caution, as another meta-analysis showed the relevance of the type of behaviour for the effectiveness of the program (Kennedy, 2020b), seeming te more effective in those behaviours most common among boys (Chocarro & Garaigordobil, 2019; Kennedy, 2020a). It has been recommended that the bullying behaviours in which girls or boys are predominantly involvee taken into account in developing prevention and intervention methodologies targeted at specific behaviours and coping strategies (Smith et al., 2019). In this regard, girls seem to prefer coping strategies that include help-seeking or ignoring bullies, while boys choose tefend themselves directly, make new friends, or even stay away from school (Sittichai & Smith, 2018).
Due to the disparity of results surrounding this issue, the main aim of this research was to explore sex differences in traditionaullying and cyberbullying among a sample of students in Galicia (Spain), both in the overall rates and in the specific bullying behaviours they coule engaging in. For the present research, the term employed is “sex”, referred teing either “boy” or “girl”. This knowledge about sex differences will contribute to reaffirm the basis for future studies and educational programmes that address cultural and social constructions that may be influencing the differentiaehaviours between girls anoys.
Method
Participants
This research was carrieut in Galicia, Spain. It consistef a paper survey applied to secondary school students between the ages of 12 and 17. An intentional sampling procedure was employed, contacting a totaf 13 public secondary schools, with 12 schools agreeing to participate in the study. The schools were not linked to each other and represented the totality of public schools in the three municipalities to which they belonged, one of them being urban and the other two rural. The initial sample was comprisef 3,431 participants whose parents consented to their participation and individually agreed to fill the survey. The final sample consistef 3,174 participants with a mean age of 14.44 years old (SD = 1.67), 49.6% of whom were boys and 50.4% girls. The educationaeveistribution was 40.7% in the first cycle of compulsory secondary education (grades 7-8), 34.6% in the second cycle of compulsory secondary education (grades 9-10), and 24.7% post-compulsory levels of secondary education (grades 11-12). Regarding the geographical area, 70.4% of the participants came from an urban setting and 29.6% from a rurane.
Procedure
Collaboration with the management of the schools was secured prior tata collection. School principals delivereetters to adolescent participants explaining the objective anate of data collection asking their parents for consent to include their children in the study. The questionnaire was administerey the researchers to small groups (20-25 students) in a classroom setting between February and April 2018. Participants were informef the objective of the study and received a detailed explanation and set of instructions for completing the paper survey. They were also informed that participation was voluntary, that they were free to complete or to refuse to fill the questionnaire, and that the possibility tpt-out was available at any time. The average time to complete the questionnaire was 30 minutes. The study was approvey the first authors’ Bioethics Committee at their University.
Materials
The questionnaire includeoth the European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (EBIPQ) and the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPQ), with a last section relating to socio-demographic information at the enf the instrument (including questions on age, sex, educational centre, and grade). For current purposes, the term “sex” referred teing either “boy” or “girl”.
The Spanish version of the EBIPQ (Ortega-Ruiz et al., 2016) contains one scale for victimization and another scale for perpetration with seven items each. It was designed to assess the frequency of traditional victimization and/or perpetration and the items relate to the types of bullying established in the literature, including physical (e.g., “Someone has hit me” “I have hit others”), verbal (e.g., “Someone has insulted me” “I’ve spread rumours about someone”), and relationaullying/victimization (e.g., “I have been excluder ignorey others”). The frequency of these behaviours is estimated taking as a reference the previous two months through a Likert scale with 5 response options: No, Yes, once or twice, Yes, once or twice a month, Yes, once a week, Yes, several times a week. Answers from once or twice a month, once a week and several times a week were coded as involvement for both perpetration and victimization. The internal consistency evaluated through the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .79 for the victimization scale and .78 for the perpetration scale.
The Spanish version of the ECIPQ (Del Rey et al., 2015; Ortega-Ruiz et al., 2016) was employed for calculating the rates and roles of cyberbullying involvement (victims, bullies, or bully-victims). This scale has 22 items, 11 for victimization and 11 for perpetration, relating tifferent types of cyberbullying behaviours (e.g., “Someone threatened me through texts or online messages”, “I have created a fake account, pretending te someone else”, “Someone posted embarrassing videos or pictures of me online”, “I excluder ignored someone in a social networking site, internet chat room, or a messenger app”). The frequency of these behaviours is estimatey taking the last two months as a reference timeframe using a Likert scale with the same 5 response options the EBIPQ has. The Cronbach alpha coefficient obtained in the present study was .78 for both the victimization scale and the perpetration scale.
Data Analysis
An analysis of the missing values was carrieut to verify a low percentage of missing values in each of the variables and the randomness of those values. From the initial sample of 3,431 subjects, 257 were removed from the database because they had too many missing values in the questionnaire (more than 5%), had not indicated their sex, or were outside the age range targeted (12 to 17 years old). The EBIPQ and the ECIPQ were coded such that answers of at least Yes, once or twice a month counted as involvement in either victimization, perpetration, or both (bully-victims). This is the same criterion usey the original Spanish adaptation, as the authors consider repetition te a requirement for bullying (Del Rey et al., 2015; Ortega-Ruiz et al., 2016). The analyses were performed with the IBM SPSS Statistics 25 statistical package. Bivariate tabulations were carrieut, with the application of contrasts χ2 for the comparison of percentages and contingency coefficients (CC) to calculate the effect size, as well as binary logistic regression analysis to attempt to further analyse the relationship between sex and the different roles of involvement in bullying and cyberbullying behaviour.
Finally, to confirm the one-dimensionality of the scales obtainey the original authors, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed with AMOS 23. The unweighteeast squares (ULS) method was used, which in addition to robustness requires no further assumptions as to its distribution (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1989). The model’s goodness of fit was evaluated with the following indexes: GFI (goodness of fit index), AGFI (adjusted goodness of fit index), and NFI (normed fit index). In accordance with the criteria of Byrne (2009) and Kline (2005), application of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed high adjustment values for the EBIPQ in the victimization scale (GFI = .99, AGFI = .98, and NFI = .98) and in the perpetration scale (GFI = .99, AGFI = .98, and NFI = .97), and also for the ECIPQ in both the victimization scale (GFI = .98, AGFI = .98, and NFI = .96) and the perpetration scale (GFI = .97, AGFI = .95, and NFI = .92).
Results
The main results showed that overall rates of bullying rangeetween 16.4% for traditional victims, 5.9% for traditional perpetrators, 12.1% for traditionaully-victims, 5.2% for cyber victims, 4.5% for cyber perpetrators, and 4.3% for cyber bully-victims. The sum of the different bullying roles (victims, perpetrators, anully-victims) results in a total involvement across all roles of 34.4% for traditionaullying and 14% for cyberbullying. Regarding sex, no statistically significant results were found in the overall cyberbullying rates, while the only statistical significance in traditionaullying was in the bully-victim role. These rates are presented in detail in Table 1.
Enlarge this image.Table 1 Rates of Prevalence of the Roles Involved in Traditionaullying and Cyberbullying. Overall any Sex
Note. n = 3,431.
*p < .05
Sex differences were explored for the specific bullying behaviours reported in the EBIPQ (see Table 2). For this, only those involved in bullying were analysed. The n was 897 victims and 566 perpetrators, and the bully-victims were included in both categories. There were differences in all the victimization behaviours, the boys suffered more physical violence (22.2% vs. 11.7% haeen hit, kicked, or pushed; 10% vs. 4.4% had suffered a theft or breakage of material), haeen insulter called names (73.1% vs. 60,2%), and haeen threatened (14.2% vs. 8.5%), while girls were subjected to more relationaehaviours (64.5% vs 48.8% had suffered having negative things said about them tther people; 24.9% vs. 14.6% haeen excluder ignored; and 24.9% vs. 14.6% had had rumours spread about them). In the case of perpetration, boys had higher rates in having hit, kicker pushed (32.8% vs. 12.4%), threatened (19.2% vs. 5.5%), and stolen or broken material from other people (13.4% vs. 4.2%). The only behaviour the girls conducted significantly more than boys was saying nasty things about someone tther people (74.2% vs. 59.9%).
Enlarge this image.Table 2 Rates of the Different Traditionaullying Behaviours. Overall and Sex Comparison
Note. CC = contingency coefficient; victimization n = 897; perpetration n = 566.
*p < .05, **p < .001.
Although no statistically significant results were found for the overall rates of cyberbullying, it was alsf interest to explore if the specific cyberbullying behaviours reported in the ECIPQ were the same for boys and girls (see Table 3). In this case, the n was 294 for victims and 276 for perpetrators, includeully-victims in both categories. While no significant sex differences were found for the victimization behaviours, perpetration behaviours differed according to sex. Boys reported more threatening of others (20.9% vs. 5.3%), hacking accounts for stealing personal information (13.5% vs. 1.5%), hacking accounts for impersonating the originawner of the account (10.6% vs. 1.5%), creating false accounts (8.5% vs. 2.2%), posting embarrassing new content of others (8.5% vs. 1.5%), and altering pictures that were already online (17% vs. 8.2%), while the only behaviour girls showed to a higher extent was saying nasty things about someone tther people (62.1% vs. 39.7%).
Enlarge this image.Table 3 Rates of the Different Cyberbullying Behaviours. Overall and Sex Comparison
Note. CC = contingency coefficient; victimization n = 294; perpetration n = 276.
*p < .05, **p < .001.
The effect size explorey the CC seemed quite low, sifferent binary logistic regression analyses were carrieut, with the intention of assessing to what extent the answers showey the subjects to the different bullying behaviours sufferer perpetrated were able to estimate if an individual was a boy or a girl. Specifically, four analyses were carrieut: (1) one selecting only those subjects who met the criteria necessary te considered victims of traditionaullying; (2) another selecting only those subjects who met the criteria necessary te considered victims of cyberbullying; (3) a third selecting only those subjects who met the criteria necessary te considered perpetrators of traditionaullying; and (4) a fourth anast one selecting only those subjects who met the criteria necessary te considered perpetrators of cyberbullying. As shown in Table 4, despite the fact that the resulting models were statistically significant in all four cases, their explanatory capacity was discrete (between 4.7% and 25.2%), which suggests that the differences found in the way girls anoys suffer or engage in bullying are fairly small, especially in the case of victimization.
Note. CC = contingency coefficient; victimization n = 897; perpetration n = 566.
*p < .05, **p < .001.
Discussion
The current study sought tetermine if the rates of bullying are different between boys and girls by engaging with a large sample of adolescents from Galicia (Spain). The main results show that traditionaullying seemed te more common than cyberbullying, with a total involvement in any role of 34.4%, while cyberbullying summed up to a total involvement of 14%. This rate is disaggregated into 16.4% victims, 5.9% perpetrators, and 12.1% who were both at the same time (bully-victims) for traditionaullying; and into 5.2% victims, 4.5% perpetrators, and 4.3% bully-victims for cyberbullying. The only differences between boys and girls found in traditionaullying were in the rates of bully-victims (13.9% vs. 10.3%). The cyberbullying rates showed nifference in terms of sex, in line with previous research concluding that neither sex nor gender seem te associated with cyberbullying (Garaigordobil & Aliri, 2013; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Larrañaga at al., 2018; Smith et al., 2008), at least in terms of overall rates.
The traditionaullying victimization behaviours that were most common across the entire sample seemed verbal and subtler forms of bullying like being called names, having nasty things about themselves said tther people, or suffering the spreaf rumours about themselves. Except for the spreading of rumours, these were the most common perpetration behaviours as well. Behaviours related to relationar psychological abuse have been found to not be taken sufficiently seriously by school staff in other research (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006), so the fact that these are the most common means awareness must be raised in schools to efficiently tackle bullying. Though there were only differences between boys and girls in the role of bully-victim, severaifferences in specific behaviours were found. There were differences in all the victimization behaviours, with boys experiencing more physical violence, being insulter called names aneing threatened, while girls were subjected to more relationaehaviours, like the spreaf rumours or being excluder ignorey others. In the case of perpetration, boys showed higher rates than girls in almost all the differences found: executing more physical violence, insulting, and threatening others. These findings are coherent with previous literature pointing tifferent bullying behaviours between boys and girls (Carrera-Fernández et al., 2016; Marcum et al., 2012; Rosen & Nofzige, 2019; Ryoo et al., 2014). However, the logistic regression showed that the differences are not remarkable enough to propose preventive strategies focusen girls anthers focusen boys. Although there were certain differences in specific behaviours suffered and perpetrated, it seemed that there is not a clearly defined pattern of bullying for girls and another one distinctly differentiated among boys.
Similarly to traditionaullying but with lower rates, the most common cyberbullying victimization and perpetration behaviours appeared to represent subtler forms of bullying like saying nasty things tthers, spreading rumours or excluding someone in social networking sites, chat rooms, or messenger apps. It is worth mentioning that some differences were founetween boys and girls regarding the cyberbullying acts they committed, but not in the ones they suffered. Boys presented higher rates in hacking accounts, threatening, creating false accounts or posting embarrassing content of others, while the only behaviour that was more prevalent for girls was saying nasty things about someone tther people. Even if the cyberbullying rates were similar for boys and girls, there seemed te slight differences in the way boys or girls do it. Girls seem to avoid physical confrontations but resort to emotional and psychological abuse (Marcum et al., 2012), which seems to transfer to their online behaviours by avoiding direct online acts such as hacking accounts or threatening others and favouring subtler ways tully others instead. It must stile noted that the differences found in present study are discrete. Moreover, in the case of cyberbullying, differences are even lower than in the traditional context, which might imply that the digital environment is a medium where sex differences are blurred to some extent. A greater disparity in the results on differences between girls anoys in the case of cyberbullying compared to traditionaullying has been pointeut by the literature (Garaigordobil & Aliri, 2013; Smith et al., 2019; Wright, 2020), with some authors theorizing that the explanation resides in the fact that cyberbullying involves more forms of indirect behaviours (Marcum et al., 2012).
The differences between boys and girls coule explainey taking into account gender socialization and normative expectation of different behaviour from boys or girls (Smith et al., 2019; Wright, 2020), as well as understanding bullying as a behaviour where the sexes perform in accordance with the gender expectef them (Carrera-Fernández et al., 2016; Rosen & Nofzige, 2019). As statey previous research, bullying prevention programs should incorporate explanations of gender and promote acceptance of gender diversity (Rosen & Nofzige, 2019). This will allow encouraging positive personal characteristics regardless of the gender to which they are attributed, and at the same time should help to reduce the bullying sufferey people with diverse gender identities and sexuarientation. It may also facilitate for boys te more open about their experience, as they seem to underreport bullying as to not show weakness (Lai & Kao, 2018) and avoid coping strategies that include help-seeking behaviour (Sittichai & Smith, 2018). However, conducting differential intervention efforts between girls anoys does not seem adequate to prevent bullying, as they do not have clearly divergent patterns to suffer nor to perpetrate bullying. Nevertheless, it should alse noted that it has been stated that prevention programs seem te more effective among boys by being more effective in bullying behaviours that are most prevalent among them (Chocarro & Garaigordobil, 2019; Kennedy, 2020a; Kennedy, 2020b; Smith et al., 2019). From this and the fact that relationar psychological abuse is considereess serious by school staff (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006), it can be inferred that more subtle or indirect behaviours may not be sufficiently addressed in current prevention and intervention programmes and may require further development in the future.
Finally, this study has three main limitations that shoule mentioned. The first is the non-probability sampling used. Although it has allowed us to analyse a large sample (a totaf 3,174 adolescents), the results are less generalizable to the wider population. Second, the small sample size of those involved in cyberbullying hinders the exploration of sex differences, as sometimes the rates of one group doubled the other but were not statistically significant. Thirdly, using sex insteaf gender can be a superficial analysis and requires further research from a gender perspective. Despite these limitations, the results presented here add to the growing literature investigating sex differences in bullying and inform about the current situation in Galicia for adolescents in this regard. Mainly, this study shows that in the assessment of bullying from a gender perspective it may be key to focus on behaviours that females and males engage in, even if the overall rates seem similar. Future research shoulook into cultural and social constructions that may be mediating different behaviours expressey boys and girls. This will in turn favour the development of more effective intervention and preventive strategies for traditionaullying and cyberbullying (Espelage et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2019).
Cite this article as: Feijóo, S. S., O’Higgins-Norman, J., Foody, M., Pichel, R., Braña, T., Varela, J., & Rial, A. (2021). Sex differences in adolescent bullying behaviours. Psychosocial Intervention, 30(2), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2021a1
Funding: This study is part of a larger research project supportey Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas under Grant 2018/008. Sandra Feijóo and Rafael Pichel were supported with a funy the Government of Galicia under grant “Programa de axudas á etapa predoutoral”. Mairéad Foody is supported with a funy the Irish Research Council and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 713279
Athanasiou, K., Melegkovits, E., Andrie, E. K., Magoulas, C., Tzavara, C. K., Richardson, C., Greydanus, D., Tsolia, M., & Tsitsika A. K. (2018). Cross-national aspects of cyberbullying victimization among 14-17-year-old adolescents across seven European countries. BMC Public Health, 18, 800. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5682-4
Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses tullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relationaullying. Journaf Educational Psychology, 98(1), 219-231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.219
Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
Carrera-Fernández, M. V., Lameiras-Fernández, M., & Rodríguez-Castro, Y. (2016). Performing intelligible genders through violence: Bullying as gender practice and heteronormative control. Gender and Education, 30(3), 341-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1203884
Chocarro, E., & Garaigordobil, M. (2019). Bullying y cyberbullying: diferencias de sexo en víctimas, agresores y observadores "Bullying and cyberbullying: gender differences in victims, aggressors anbservers". Pensamiento Psicológico, 17(2), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javerianacali.PPSI17-2.bcds
Coen, S., & Banister, E. (Eds.) (2012). What a difference sex and gender make: A gender, sex and health research casebook. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?;abstract_id=2199670
Del Rey, R., Casas, J. A., Ortega-Ruiz, R., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Smith, P., Thompson, F., Barkoukisf, V., Tsorbatzoudisf, H., Brighig, A., Guarinig, A., Pyzalski, J., & Plichta, P. (2015). Structural validation and cross-cultural robustness of the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 141-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.065
Del Rey, R., Lazuras, L., Casas, J. A., Barkoukis, V., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Tsorbatzoudis, H. (2016). Does empathy predict (cyber) bullying perpetration, and how do age, gender and nationality affect this relationship?; Learning and Individuaifferences, 45, 275-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.021
Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditionaullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internetmediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12(1), 109-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341260
Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S. E., & Swearer, S. M. (2004). Gender differences in bullying: Moving beyond mean leveifferences. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 15-35). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Foody, M., McGuire, L., Kuldas, S., & O’Higgins-Norman, J. (2019). Friendship quality and gender differences in association with cyberbullying involvement and psychological well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 17-23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01723
Garaigordobil, M., & Aliri, J. (2013). Ciberacoso (“Cyberbullying”) en el País Vasco: diferencias de sexo en víctimas, agresores y observadores "Cyberbullying in the Basque Country: Gender differences in victims, perpetrators anbservers". Behavioral Psychology, 21(3), 461-474. https://www.behavioralpsycho.com/
Ging, D., & O’Higgins Norman, J. (2016). Cyberbullying, conflict management or just messing?; Teenage girls’ understandings and experiences of gender, friendship, and conflict on Facebook in an Irish second-level school. Feminist Media Studies, 16(5), 805-821. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2015.1137959
Golpe, S., Gómez, P., Harris, S. K., Braña, T., & Rial, A. (2017). Diferencias de sexo en el use Internet en adolescentes españoles "Sex differences in Internet use among Spanish teenagers". Behavioral Psychology, 25(1), 129-146. https://www.behavioralpsycho.com/producto/diferencias-de-sexo-en-el-uso-de-internet-en-adolescentes-espanoles/
Görzig, A., & Ólafsson K. (2013). What makes a bully a cyberbully?; Unravelling the characteristics of cyberbullies across twenty-five European countries. Journaf Children and Media, 7(1), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2012.739756
Hartung, C. M., Little, C. S., Allen, E. K., & Page, M. C. (2011). A psychometric comparison of two self-report measures of bullying and victimization: Differences by sex and grade. School Mental Health: A Multidisciplinary Research and Practice Journal, 3(1), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-010-9046-1
Heidari, S., Babor, T. F., De Castro, P., Tort, S., & Curno, M. (2016). Sex and gender equity in research: Rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Research Integrity and Peer Review "digital publication". https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related tffending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 298(2), 129-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620701457816
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle and high school students. Journaf Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 711-722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9902-4
Inchley, J., Currie, D., Budisavljevic, S., Torsheim, T., Jåstad, J., Cosma, A., Kelly, C., Arnarsson, A. M., & Samdal, O. (2020). Spotlight on adolescent health and well-being. Findings from the 2017/2018 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) Survey in Europe and Canada. International report (Volume 2. Key data). WHO Regionaffice for Europe.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7 User’s reference guide. Scientific Software
Kasahara, G. M., Houlihan, D., & Estrada, C. (2019). Gender differences in social media use and cyberbullying in Belize: A preliminary report. International Journaf Psychological Studies, 11(2), 32-1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v11n2p32
Kennedy, R. S. (2020a). Gender differences in outcomes of bullying prevention programs: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105506
Kennedy, R. S. (2020b). A meta-analysis of the outcomes of bullying prevention programs on subtypes of traditionaullying victimization: Verbal, relational, and physical. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 55, 101-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101485
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2 ed.). The Guilford Press.
Larrañaga, E., Navarro, R., & Yubero, S. (2018). Socio-cognitive and emotional factors on perpetration of cyberbullying. Comunicar, 26(56), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.3916/C56-2018-02
Lai, T., & Kao, G. (2018). Hit, robbed, and put down (but not bullied): Underreporting of bullying by minority and male students. Journaf Youth and Adolescence, 47(3), 619-635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0748-7
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet. The perspective of European children: Full findings and policy implications from the EU Kids Online survey of 9-16 year old and their parents in 25 countries. EU Kids Online Network.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Camodeca, M. (2013). Morality, values, traditionaullying, and cyberbullying in adolescence. British Journaf Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02066.x
Menesini, E., Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., Freiburger, T. L., & Ricketts, M. L. (2012). Battle of the sexes: An examination of male and female cyberbullying. International Journaf Cyber Criminology, 6(1), 904-911. https://www.cybercrimejournal.com/
O’Higgins Norman, J. (2020). Tackling bullying from the inside out: Shifting paradigms in bullying research and interventions. International Journaf Bullying Prevention, 2(3), 161-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-020-00076-1
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume III): What schooife means for students’ lives. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/publications/pisa-2018-results-volume-iii-acd78851-en.htm
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell Publishers.
Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon?; European Journaf Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 520-538. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.682358
Ortega-Ruiz, R., Del Rey, R., & Casas, J. A. (2016). Evaluar el bullying y el cyberbullying: validación española del EBIP-Q y del ECIP-Q "Assessing bullying and cyberbullying: Spanish validation of EBIP-Q and ECIP-Q". Psicología Educativa, 22(1), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2016.01.004
Romera, E. M., Del Rey, R., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2011). Factores asociados a la implicación en bullying: un estudio en Nicaragua "Factors associated with involvement in bullying: A study in Nicaragua". Psychosocial Intervention, 20(2), 161-170. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2011v20n2a4
Rosen, N. L., & Nofzige, S. (2019). Boys, bullying, and gender roles: How hegemonic masculinity shapes bullying behavior. Gender Issues, 36, 295-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-018-9226-0
Ryoo, J. H., Wang, C., & Swearer, S. M. (2014). Examination of the change in latent statuses in bullying behaviors across time. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(1), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000082
Silva, M. A., Pereira, B., Mendonça, D., Nunes, B., & de Oliveira, W. A. (2013). The involvement of girls anoys with bullying: An analysis of gender differences. International Journaf Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(12), 6820-6831. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10126820
Sittichai, R., & Smith, P. K. (2018). Bullying and cyberbullying in Thailand: Coping strategies and relation to age, gender, religion and victim status. Journaf New Approaches in Educational Research, 7(1), 24-30. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2018.1.254
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?; Scandinavian Journaf Psychology, 49(2), 147-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024
Smith, P. K., López-Castro, L., Robinson, S., & Görzig, A (2019). Consistency of gender differences in bullying in cross-cultural surveys. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.04.006
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, C., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journaf Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
Sticca, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditionaullying?; Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journaf Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 739-750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3
UNESCO. (2019). Behind the numbers: Ending school violence anullying. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culturarganization (UNESCO). https://hivhealthclearinghouse.unesco.org/library/documents/behind-numbers-ending-school-violence-and-bullying
UNICEF. (2017). Child privacy in the age of web 2.0 and 3.0: Challenges anpportunities for policy. Innocenti Publications. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/926-child-privacy-in-the-age-of-web-20-and-30-challenges-and-opportunities-for-policy.html
Wright, M. F. (2020). The role of technologies, behaviors, gender, and gender stereotype traits in adolescents’ cyber aggression. Journaf Interpersonal Violence, 35(7-8), 1719-1738. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517696858
Sandra Feijóo1, James O’Higgins-Norman2, Mairéad Foody2, Rafael Pichel1, Teresa Braña1, Jesús Varela1, and Antonio Rial1
1University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain; 2Dublin City University, Ireland
© 2021. This work is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es_ES (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.