Diferențe în climatul familial și comunicarea

familială între
cyberbullies, cybervictims, și cyber
bullyevictims la adolescenți

CUPRINS
INTRODUCERE.........................................................................................................................................3

1
METODE....................................................................................................................................................4
Participanți..............................................................................................................................................4
Măsurători...............................................................................................................................................4
Procedură.................................................................................................................................................5
Analiza Statistică.....................................................................................................................................5
REZULTATE..............................................................................................................................................5
DISCUȚII....................................................................................................................................................6
LIMITĂRI...................................................................................................................................................6
BIBLIOGRAFIE.........................................................................................................................................7
ANEXĂ.......................................................................................................................................................8

2
INTRODUCERE

În societatea actuală, bullying-ul a devenit o adevărată formă de amenințare pentru adolescenți.

Mulți dintre ei se confruntă zilnic cu această forma de viloență cauzată de colegii lor de școală,
sau alți adolescenți de vârsta lor cu scopil de a-i intimida. Odată cu dezvoltarea tehnologiei, a
apărut o nouă formă de agresiune în rândul adolencenților, umită și cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying este definit ca un comportament agresiv, repetitiv și deliberat între colegi, unde o
persoană sau un grup utilizează dispozitive electronice pentru a abuza o victimă care nu se poate
apăra cu ușurință. Cyberbullying-ul este hărțuirea care are loc pe dispozitivele digitale cum ar fi
telefoanele mobile, computerele și tabletele. Acest fenomen poate apărea prin SMS, text și
aplicații sau prin intermediul rețelelor de socializare online, forumuri sau jocuri de noroc, unde
oamenii pot vedea, participa sau pot partaja conținut. Poate include schimbul de informații
personale sau private despre altcineva care provoacă jenă sau umilință.

Consider că această tema este una importantă și de actualitate, deaorece fiecare dintre noi putem
fi ținta unui cyberbully în orice moment. Hărțuirea pe internet afectează persoanele de toate
vârstele, însă în cazul copiilor efectele pot fi mult mai grave. Fiind sensibili din punct de vedere
psihologic, cei mici pot recurge la gesturi dintre cele mai neașteptate atunci când simt că
activitatea de pe internet le afectează viața.

Studiile privind tendințele globale ale cyberbullying-ului au generat rezultate foarte diferite, (o
rata de 72%, Juvoven & Gross, 2008 și de 6,5%, Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) ceea ce face dificilă
realizarea de comparații între sondaje. Această disparitate strictă poate fi atribuită diferitelor
fundații și metodologii conceptuale utilizate în aceste studii științifice.

Este încă neclar dacă hărțuirea / agresiunea in mediul online este un subtip de agresiune
tradițională sau o variantă a agresiunii tradiționale, dar cu caracteristici specifice, sau un
fenomen complet diferit față de agresiunea tradițională. (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009).

3
METODE

Participanți
Participanții au fost aleși folosindu-se un eșantion randomizat. Subiecții au fost aleși dint-o
școala (școala pubilcă și semi-publică) din Valencia, Spania. Eșantionul a fost rarefiat și pe baza
notelor elevilor din școli. Astfel, pe baza acestor criterii, patru școli (trei școli publice și o școală
privată) au fost selectate aleator în fiecare din cele 17 județe din provincia Valencia,
reprezentând în total 68 de școli.

În total 1068 de adolescenți au participat la acest studiu , dintre care șase au fost excluși pentru că
au răspuns sistematic în același mod la scale. În cele din urmă, eșantionul a fost compus din 1062
de adolescenți (51,4% băieți și 48,5% fete) între 12 și 18 ani care au fost studenți la patru școli
secundare din provinciile Valencia și Alicante.

Măsurători
 Pentru Agresiunea cibernetica

Scala care măsoară agresiunea în rândul adolescenților prin intermediul telefonului mobil este
alcătuită din 18 itemi de evaluare pe o scală 4-puncte Likert, variind de la 1 (niciodată) până la 4
(întotdeauna). Scala măsoară experiența adolescentului ca victimă a agresiunii cibernetice prin
intermediul telefonului mobil și al internetului în ultimele 12 luni.

 Pentru comportamentul în familie

Scala pentru mediul familial este compusă din 90 itemi cu raspunsuri de tipul adevart/fals, care
măsoară caracteristicile sociale și de mediu ale familiilor. A fost selectata subscala care vizeaza
relațiile familiale. Aceasta este alcătuită din 27 de itemi care măsoară percepția adolescentului
asupra calității relațiilor sale de familie.

 Pentru comunicarea în cadrul familiei

Scala de comunicare între părinți și adolescenți este compusă din 20 de itemi evaluați pe o scală
Likert în 5 trepte variind de la 1 (niciodată) la 5 (întotdeauna). Elementele măsoară percepția
adolescentului despre comunicarea cu tatăl și mama separat.

4
Procedură
După contactul inițial cu directorii școlilor selectate, a avut loc un seminar informativ pentru
profesori și administrație pentru a explica obiectivele cercetării și pentru a solicita autorizațiile
părinților. Apoi, o scrisoare care descrie studiul a fost trimisă părinților, instruindu-i să indice în
scris dacă nu doreau ca copilul lor să participe la studiu (doar 1% dintre părinți au făcut acest
lucru). Participanții au completat anonim și în mod voluntar scalele în timpul unei ore de clasă
obișnuite (55 min).

Analiza Statistică
Au fost efectuate analize statistice folosind pachetul statistic SPSS, versiunea 23. În primul rând,
s-au efectuat analize descriptive pentru a examina frecvența comportamentelor de hărțuire
cibernetică și cyberbullying. Comunicarea familială și climatul familial au fost destul de normal
distribuite. Acest lucru înseamnă că majoritatea adolescenților nu au prezentat niveluri ridicate
ale variabilelor legate de implicarea în cibernetism. Analiza de corelație Pearson a fost efectuată
pentru a analiza relațiile dintre variabilele studiului.

REZULTATE

În cazul agresiunii cibernetice, rezultatele au arătat că insultarea sau ridiculizarea unei persoane a
fost cel mai frecvent comportament de tip cyberbullying, în timp ce forțarea ca cineva să facă
lucrurile pe care nu dorea să le facă prin folosirea amenințărilor, a fost cel mai puțin frecvent
comportamentul de tip cyberbullying. În ceea ce privește cybervictimization, rezultatele au arătat
că primirea apelurilor prin dispozitive mobile a fost cea mai frecvent raportată agresiune, în timp
ce comportamentul cel mai puțin frecvent a fost ca subiecții sa fie "obligați să facă lucruri pe
care nu au vrut să le facă, prin utilizarea amenințărilor".

5
DISCUȚII

În ceea ce privește obiectivul principal al studiului, rezultatele arată că contextul familial joacă
un rol important în comportamentul de hărțuire cibernetică și, în special, în cazul victimelor
cibernetice. Datele arată că acest din urmă grup percepe o climă familială negativă și are o slabă
comunicare parenteală. În plus, victimele cyberbullying-ului prezintă dificultăți de comunicare
cu mama, deoarece percep comunicarea ca fiind ofensatoare, închisă și nu foarte empatică, și cu
tatăl, percepând comunicarea ca ofensivă și vorbind despre anumite subiectele controversate sunt
evitate.

LIMITĂRI

Eșantionul este ales doar dintr-o regiune din Spania (rezultatele pot diferii în funcție de locul din
care a fost ales eșantionul).

Mediul în care a fost administrat studiul (în sensul că unii subiecți se pot simți
influențați/constrânși de celelate persoane din jurul lor).

6
BIBLIOGRAFIE

Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying
identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Journal of Psychology, 217, 205-213.

Juvoven, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?dBullying experiences
in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496-505.

Sofia, B., Belen, M.F., & Maria-Jesus, C. (2017). Differences in family climate and
family communication among cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyber bullyevictims in
adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior. 76 164-173.

Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets:
A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
45(7), 1308-1316.

7
ANEXĂ
Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / lo c a t e / c o m p h u m b e h

Full length article

Differences in family climate and family communication among

cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyber bullyevictims in adolescents

a b, * a
Sofía Buelga , Belen MartínezeFerrer , MaríaeJesús Cava

aDepartment of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Avenida Blasco Ibanez,~ 13, 40010, Valencia, Spain
b Department of Education and Social Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University Pablo de Olavide, Ctra. Utrera, km.1, 41013, Sevilla, Spain

Family climate

Parentechild communication

article info
Cyberbullyevictims

Cyberbullying
Article history:

Adolescence
Received 31 January 2017

Received in revised form

8 July 2017

Accepted 11 July 2017

Available online 11 July
2017

Keywords:

8
 cybervictims, cyberbullies, cyberbullyevictims, and noneinvolved adolescents. The study had two main
objectives: (1) to analyze the differences in family climate (cohesion and conflict) and communication patterns
with the mother and father (open, avoidance, and offensive) among the four roles, controlling the variables sex
and academic grade; and (2) to determine the predictive weight of these family variables in the roles involved in
abstract cyberbullying. A battery of instruments was applied to 1062 adolescents from 12 to 18 years old. The results
revealed that the cyberbullyevictim profile had the lowest quality family climate and family communication
patterns. In addition, family conflict predicted the role of cyberbullies, and noneopen communication with the
mother and avoidant communication with the father predicted the role of cybervictim. Finally, these family
variables together (conflict and noneopen and avoidant communication) predicted the role of cyberbullyevictim.
Scientific studies on family factors
related to the main cyberbullying roles
are still scarce. The present study
analyzed family climate and
parenteadolescent communication in © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
the four roles involved in cyberbullying: reserved.

1. Introduction necessarily imply cyberbullying/victimization, but rather other events

that do not comply with all the bullying criteria (Antoniadou

Cyberbullying is defined as aggressive, repetitive, and deliberate & Kokkinos, 2015).

behavior between peers, where one person or group uses electronic
devices (electronic communication technologies) to abuse a victim
who cannot easily defend him/herself (Aboujaoude, Savage,
Starcevic, & Salame, 2015; Giumetti & Kowalski, 2016). The prev-
alence of cybervictimization and perpetration ranges between
approximately 15% and 40% (Garaigordobil & MartínezeValderrey,
2016; Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Tanrikulu
& Campbell, 2015; Tokunaga, 2010). In fact, studies on worlde-wide
cyberbullying trends have produced widely varying results (rates as
high as 72%, Juvoven & Gross, 2008, and as low as 6.5%, Ybarra &
Mitchell, 2004), which makes it difficult to draw com-parisons
between surveys. This stark disparity may be attributed to the
different conceptual foundations and methodologies used in these
scientific studies (Buelga, Cava, Musitu, & Torralba, 2015; Festl,
Vogelgesang, Scharkow, & Quandt, 2017). Furthermore, it is
important to note that many of the reported behaviors do not
It is still unclear whether cyberbullying/victimization is a sub-type
of traditional bullying (Olweus, 2013, following the criteria of
intentionality, repetition, and power imbalance), or a variant of
traditional bullying but with specific features (Slonje, Smith, &
Frisen, 2013), or a completely distinct phenomenon from tradi-tional
bullying (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009). Regarding the latter
position, Antoniadou and Kokkinos (2015) and Mishna,
KhouryeKassabri, Gadalla, and Daciuk (2012) propose that the
characteristics of the new information and communication tech-
nologies (potential anonymity, pseudonymity, asynchronous
communication, power, status equalization, and lack of supervi-sion)
make them a unique phenomenon that explains the high prevalence of
bullyevictims in cyberbullying/victimization. These conditions make
it possible for the victim to countereattack on the Internet and display
behaviors that s/he would not dare to perform faceetoeface.

A large number of adolescents seem to be involved in both cyber

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Sofia.Buelga@uv.es (S. Buelga), bmarfer2@upo.es (B.
MartínezeFerrer), maria.j.cava@uv.es (M. Cava).
aggression and cyber victimization. However, compared to the large
amount of previous research focused on the cybervictim and
cyberbully roles (see Kowalski et al., 2014), few studies have

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.017

0747-5632/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

9
 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173 165

few studies that have analyzed the prevalence of cyberbullyevictims are

contradictory. Whereas Mishna et al. (2012) reported a larger number of girls
examined adolescents who are both victims and perpetrators in the virtual involved as cyberbullyevictims, CuadradoeGordillo and FernandezeAntelo
environment (see Chang et al., 2013; CuadradoeGordillo & (2014) found a higher percentage of boys, and Bayraktar, Machackova,
FernandezeAntelo, 2014; Kokkinos, Antoniadou, & Markos, 2014). In fact, Dedkova, Cerna,
some studies conclude that previous research has under-estimated the
proportion of perpetratorevictims in this area (Festl et al., 2017;
SchultzeeKrumbholz et al., 2015).

In Spain, in spite of the rapid growth of the field of cyberbullying and the and Sevcíkova (2015) found no differences between the sexes. With regard to
increase in the number of articles published in the past age, various studies have observed a greater

decade (e.g. Zych, OrtegaeRuiz, & MaríneLopez, 2016), research on number of cyberbullying victims among pre-adolescents (elementary school)
cyberbully/victims is still scarce. However, previous findings in this cultural (Kokkinos, Antoniadou, Dalara, Koufogazou,
context have emphasized the relevance of cyberbul-lyevictims. For instance,
studies have shown that approximately 15e18% of Spanish adolescents have
been classified as cyberbul-lyevictims (CuadradoeGordillo & & Papatziki, 2013; Mishna et al., 2012; Tanrikulu & Campbell, 2015). By
FernandezeAntelo, 2014; GamezeGuadix, Gini, & Calvete, 2015). Moreover, contrast, older students (high school) seem to more
Romera, Cano,

GarcíaeFernandez, and OrtegaeRuiz (2016) pointed out that

cyberbullyevictims make up the most frequent group. Likewise, in another
Mediterranean country, Kokkinos et al. (2014) observed that the
cyberbullyevictim was the most common participant role among Greek
students. Furthermore, in Canada, Mishna et al. (2012) found that 25% of
adolescents are cyberbullyevictims, the predominant role found in their study.
In the Czech Republic, Bayraktar, Machackova, Dedkova, Cerna, and
Sevcíkova (2015) found that almost 20% of the students involved in
cyberbullying abuse their peers and are abused by them. Moreover, in
Germany, Festl et al. (2017), using an innovative approach to cyberbullying
(Latent Transition Analysis), found a heavily victimized group (with mild
perpetration) and a very small class of heavy perpe-tratorevictims with
intensive and stable problematic behavior.

In spite of the relevance of this role and its implications for adolescents’
adjustment (Kokkinos et al., 2014), little is known about the
sociodemographic characteristics of adolescents who are both cyberbullies
and cybervictims. Therefore, the current study further explores the
relationships among demographic character-istics of adolescents involved as
cyberbullyevictims.

In addition, research related to the risk and protection factors associated

with cyberbullying has focused on individual and social variables, whereas
studies that explore the importance of family relationships are scarce and
based on findings from traditional bullying literature. In this regard, empirical
evidence has focused mainly on cyberbullies and cybervictims. The present
study ex-plores the role of family climate and parentechild communication in
adolescent cyberbullies, cybervictims, cyberbullyevictims, and noneinvolved
adolescents.

1.1. Demographic characteristics of roles involved in cyberbullying

Most of the research on the prevalence of cyberbullying has focused on

cyberbullies and cybervictims. Results have consistently shown that boys are
more involved as cyberbullies (Katzer, Fetchenhauer, & Belschak, 2009;
OrtegaeBaron, Buelga, Cava, & Torralba, 2017; SchultzeeKrumbholz et al.,
2015) and girls as cybervictims (Aboujaoude et al., 2015; Navarro, Serna,
Martínez, & RuizeOliva, 2013; Zych et al., 2016). However, findings from the
10

frequently perform the roles of cyberbully (Buelga, Iranzo, Cava, & Torralba,
2015; Zych et al., 2016) and cyberbullyevictim (Festl et al., 2017; Mishna et
al., 2012). In their metaeanalysis on the interaction between age and sex,
Barlett and Coyne (2014) found significant differences in cyberbullying. Girls
use cyberbullying at younger ages to inflict relational or indirect aggression,
whereas boys in-crease these behaviors during mideadolescence and late
adoles-cence. Along these lines, Festl et al. (2017) confirmed that girls were
commonly in the gossip group, whereas boys were more frequently the (more
direct) insulting perpetratorevictims.
more recently, cybervictims (see Larranaga,~ Yubero, Ovejero, & Navarro,
2016; OrtegaeBaron, Buelga, & Cava, 2016; Van Dijk et al., 2013) and
cyberbullyevictims (Bayraktar et al., 2015; Kokkinos et al., 2016; Romera et
al., 2016).
Recent literature shows that family relationships characterized by a
positive family climate and open and empathic parentechild communication
act as protector factors against cybervictimization and cyberperpetration
(Buelga et al., 2016; Cross et al., 2015; Fanti, Demetriou, & Hawa, 2012;
Navarro, RuizeOliva, et al., 2015; OrtegaeBaron et al., 2016). By contrast,
cyberbullies present

1.2. Family risk and protection factors linked to the different roles

The classic digital gap between digital natives and immigrants has been
considerably reduced in recent years, but it still exists between parents and
their adolescent children (Kokkinos,

Antoniadou, Asdre, & Voulgaridou, 2016; Protegeles, 2014). In Spain, many

parents still do not have enough technological competence, and they find it
difficult to understand their children's fascination with having fun and
interacting almost continuously on the Internet (Buelga, 2016). Spain is the
European country with the highest proportions of Internet access via
smartphone (European Commission, 2015), which fosters adolescents'
constant connec-tion to the Internet. In fact, 70% of Spanish adolescents have
a

smartphone at the age of 12 (Protegeles, 2014), and 98% at the age of 14

(Ditrendia Digital Marketing Trends, 2016). The almost generalized
availability of these devices in such a young population reveals the
importance of research designed to study the family factors linked to the
misuse of ICTs.

Nevertheless, the limited findings on family variables in cyber-bullying

contrast with the abundant literature available on tradi-tional bullying (see
Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013). Numerous studies on traditional bullying
have consistently shown the exis-tence of family protection and risk factors
associated with the roles of bully and victim, such as family communication
problems (Griffin & Gross, 2004; MartínezeFerrer, Musitu, Murgui, &

Amador, 2009; Sanchez, Leon, MartínezeFerrer, & Moreno, 2015) and

maladaptive parenting (Georgiou, Ioannou, & Stavrinides, 2016; Hong &
Espelage, 2012; Pontzer, 2010). Moreover, the perception of a negative
family climate, where there are commu-nication problems, frequent conflicts,
and low levels of involvement (Cava, Musitu, & Murgui, 2007; Lereya et al.,
2013; MartínezeFerrer, Moreno, Amador, & Orford, 2011), has been related
to victims of bullying and the role of bullyevictim (Estevez, Jimenez, &
Moreno, 2010; Hoetger, Hazen, & Brank, 2015).

Family factors also seem to be strongly related to cyberbullying (Buelga,

MartínezeFerrer, & Musitu, 2016; Kokkinos et al., 2016;

Navarro, Yubero, & Larranaga,~ 2016). As Kokkinos et al. (2016) suggested,

family factors appear to be linked to cyberbullying/ victimization because,
contrary to traditional bullying, the prob-lems occur outside the school
context and, therefore, can have a weak connection to schoolerelated
variables (i.e. involvement in schoolwork, teacher support). Until now, the
existing research on cyberbullying has mainly addressed cyberbullies (see
Baldry, Farrington, & Sorrentino, 2015; Hemphill & Heerde, 2014), and

11
166 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173

lyevictims, and noneinvolved adolescents), taking sex and aca-demic grade

dysfunctional family relationships characterized by poor emotional
attachment to their parents (Hemphill & Heerde, 2014; Ybarra & Mitchell,
2004), a negative perception of parental support (Fanti et al., 2012), frequent
family conflicts (Tanrikulu & Campbell, 2015), and negative communication
patterns with their parents (Elgar et al., 2014). Furthermore, as
MartínezeHerves, Kramer, and Hickey (2014) suggested, there is a significant
positive correlation between worse family functioning and time spent online
and being involved in cyberbullying, even after controlling for time spent
online.
(age) into account in the analysis.
Furthermore, previous findings pointed out that family variables should be
taken into account when examining adolescents’ involvement in both bullying
and cyberbullying (Buelga et al., 2016; Festl et al., 2017; Kokkinos et al.,
2016). However, little is known about the role of family climate and
parenteadolescent

Likewise, family relationships of cybervictims, although less deteriorated

than those of cyberbullies, have been found to be negative, with avoidant and
conflictive communication patterns with their parents (Buelga et al., 2016;
Larranaga~ et al., 2016; Van Dijk et al., 2013). In this regard, Accordino and
Accordino (2011) reported that family cohesion was negatively associated
with cybervictimization. In fact, less family cohesion increases the probability
of being the target of electronic bullying (Buelga et al., 2016; MakrieBotsari
& Karagianni, 2014), and this experience of cybervictimization is prolonged
in time (GamezeGuadix et al., 2015; Van Dijk et al., 2013), due to the lack of
social and family resources of these adolescents. In addition, positive paren-
teadolescent communication is associated with parents’ engage-ment in
dialogue with adolescents about online risks, which is linked to low
involvement in cyberbullying/cybervictimization (Mesch, 2009; Perren et al.,
2012).

In the case of family relationships of cyberbullyevictims, the empirical

evidence available is still scarce. Previous studies on traditional bullying have
shown that bullyevictims, compared to other roles, present not only
psychological symptoms (Kokkinos et al., 2014), but also behavioral and
family adjustment problems (Keelan, Schenk, McNally, & Fremouw, 2014;
Lereya et al., 2013; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). Specifically, findings show
that bullyevictims come from harsher family environments with more adverse
family backgrounds (Lereya et al., 2013). These results coincide with those
found recently by Bayraktar et al. (2015) in one of the few existing studies on
the family relationships of cyber-bullyevictims. These authors found that
cyberbullyevictims, compared to cyberbullies, cybervictims, and
noneinvolved ado-lescents, have more psychosocial difficulties and worse
parental attachment. Moreover, a study carried out by Kokkinos et al. (2016)
showed that preeadolescents who perceive less harmonious parenting
(authoritarian and submissive parenting styles) are more frequently involved
as cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbullyevictims.

1.3. The present study

In the extant literature, few scientific studies have addressed the family
factors related to the main cyberbullying roles (bullies, vic-tims) and included
the profile of cyberbullyevictims. Thus, the present study examined
adolescents’ roles in cyberbullying. Taking into account previous studies on
bullying and cyberbullying (e.g. SchultzeeKrumbholz et al., 2015), the
following roles were ex-pected to emerge: cyberbullies, cybervictims,
cyberbullyevictims, and noneinvolved. From this perspective, the first
objective of this study was to identify and analyze the prevalence of the main
roles involved in cyberbullying (cyberbullies, cybervictims, cyberbul-
12
 these adolescents, 44.8% were enrolled in the first cycle of Compulsory
Secondary Education (CSE), (lower secondary), 39.5% were enrolled in the
communication in the different roles involved in cyberbullying (cybervictims, second cycle of CSE (upper secondary), and 15.7% were enrolled in
cyberbullies, cyberbullyevictims, and non-einvolved). In the present study, Preeuniversity studies. Ethnicity distri-bution was 86.3% Spanish, 1%
we analyzed differences in the family climate (cohesion and conflict) and African, 10% Latin American, 2.4% European Union members, and 0.4%
communication patterns with the mother and father (open, avoidant, and Asian, which was similar to the national average (Ministry of Education,
offensive), con-trolling the variables sex and academic grade. Based on Culture and Sport of the Spanish Government, 2014). The size of the sample
previous studies indicating that negative family relations are related to of ado-lescents corresponded to the size of the group of students in
involvement in bullying or cyberbullying as a perpetrator Compulsory and Upper Secondary Education in the Valencian Community.
(SchultzeeKrumbholz et al., 2015), we expected that cyberbullies and
cyberbullyevictims, compared to cybervictims and non-einvolved
adolescents, would obtain lower scores on family climate and present more
problematic communication patterns with their parents. Finally, we analyzed
the predictive weight of these family variables in the roles involved in
cyberbullying. Along these lines, we hypothesized that family climate and
negative communication would have greater weight in predicting the role of
cyberbullyevictim. This study may contribute to specifically advancing the
knowledge about the family setting in the main roles involved in
cyberbullying and, more specifically, the profile of cyberbullyevictims. In
addition, this study will provide information at the national level in Spain
because there have been few studies on cyberbullyevictims and, specifically,
family factors related to this role.

Therefore, based on the literature review, we propose the following

research hypotheses:

H1. Cyberbullyevictims, compared to cyberbullies, cybervictims, and

noneinvolved adolescents, will obtain lower scores on family climate and
present more problematic communication patterns with their parents.

H2. Family climate and negative communication will have greater weight in
predicting the role of cyberbullyevictims.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Participants

Participants were selected using randomized cluster sampling. The unit

(cluster) was the school epublic and semi public Sec-ondary Schoolse in the
Valencian region (Spain). The sample was also stratified by academic grade.
Thus, based on these criteria, four schools (three public and one
publiclyesubsidized private school) were randomly selected in each of the 17
counties in the province of Valencia, representing 68 schools in all. The
sample size dwith a sampling error of ±3.4%, a confidence level of 95%, and
p ¼ q ¼ 0.5, (N ¼ 190,773)d was estimated at 1061 students.

A total of 1068 adolescents participated in this study, six of whom were

excluded for responding systematically in the same way to the scales. Finally,
the sample was composed of 1062 adolescents (51.4% boys and 48.5% girls)
between 12 and 18 years old (M ¼ 14.5; SD ¼ 1.62) who were students at
four public secondary schools in the provinces of Valencia and Alicante. Of

13
 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173 167

The ParenteAdolescent Communication Scale (PACS; Barnes &

2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Cybervictimization
The Adolescent Victimization through Mobile Phone and Internet Scale
(CYBVIC; Buelga, Cava, & Musitu, 2010) consists of 18 items rated on a
4epoint Likertetype scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always). The scale
measures the adolescent's experience as a victim of cyberbullying through the
mobile phone and the Internet in the past 12 months. The scale consists of two
subscales: Mobile Phone Victimization (e.g. “Someone called me and hung
up”); and Internet victimization (e.g. “Someone went into my private ac-
counts, and I couldn't do anything about it”). The CFA using the maximum
likelihood estimation method confirmed the fit of the proposed measurement
2
model, SBc ¼ 238.90, df ¼ 124, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.93, NNFI ¼ 0.91,
RMSEA ¼ 0.03, 90% CI [0.024, 0.035], and the internal consistency
(Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.89).
Olson, 1982; Spanish adaptation by Estevez, Musitu, & Herrero, 2005) is
composed of 20 items rated on a 5epoint Likertetype scale ranging from 1
(never) to 5 (always). The items measure the adolescent's perception of the
communication with his/her father and mother separately. This scale has three
subscales for the father and three for the mother: Openness in Father/Mother
Communi-cation (e.g., “I can discuss my beliefs with my mother/father
without feeling restrained or embarrassed); Offensive Communi-cation with
Father/Mother (e.g. “S/he insults me when s/he is angry with me”); and
Avoidant Communication with Father/Mother (e.g. “There are topics I avoid
discussing with him/her”. The second or-der CFA using the maximum
likelihood estimation method confirmed the fit of the proposed measurement
2
model, SBc ¼ 545.30, df ¼ 156, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.94, NNFI ¼ 0.92,
RMSEA ¼ 0.04, 90% CI [0.000, 0.030]. The Cronbach's alpha

2.2.2. Cyberbullying

The Cyberbullying Scale (CYBeAGRESS; Buelga & Pons, 2012) consists

of 10 items rated on a 5epoint Likertetype scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5
(very often). The items evaluate one's involve-ment as the perpetrator in
aggressive behaviors via the Internet (e.g. “I have entered someone else's
Messenger or private accounts without him/her being able to do anything
about it”) and Mobile Phone (e.g. “I have insulted or ridiculed someone”) in
the past 12 months. The CFA using the maximum likelihood estimation
2
method confirmed the fit of the proposed measurement model, SBc ¼ 41.50,
df ¼ 32, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.98, NNFI ¼ 0.98, RMSEA ¼ 0.02, 90% CI
[0.000, 0.030], and the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.80).

2.2.3. Family climate

The Family Environment Scale (FES; Spanish adaptation by

FernandezeBallesteros & Sierra, 1989) is composed of 90 trueefalse items
measuring social and environmental characteristics of fam-ilies. In the present
study, the Relationship subscale was selected. It consists of 27 items that
measure the adolescent's perception of the quality of his/her family
relationships by assessing three domains: Cohesion (e.g. “There is a strong
feeling of togetherness in our family”); Expressiveness (e.g. “Family members
often keep their feelings to themselves”); and Conflict (e.g., “We fight a lot in
our family”). The CFA using the maximum likelihood estimation method
2
confirmed the fit of the proposed measurement model, SB c ¼ 559.67, df ¼
32, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.93, NNFI ¼ 0.92, RMSEA ¼ 0.05, 90% CI [0.045,
0.054], and the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.84, 0.71, and 0.86
for cohesion, expressive-ness, and conflict respectively).

2.2.4. Family communication

14

reliability coefficients in this study were: 0.91 and 0.90 for open-ness
communication with the mother and father, respectively; 0.72 and 0.74 for
Offensive communication with the father and mother, respectively; and 0.66
and 0.67 for avoidance communication with the father and mother,
respectively.
adolescents' involvement in cyberbullying. On the one hand, previous studies
have found four groups, coinciding with the roles found in traditional bullying
ecyberbullies, cybervictims, cyberbullyevictims, and noneinvolvede (e.g.,
Olweus, 2013). On the other hand, different profiles have been found when
examining cyberbullying latent trajectories (e.g. Festl et al., 2017). Conse-
quently, we conducted a cluster analysis to explore the groups that would
emerge as a natural cluster. Before performing the cluster analysis, all the
measures were standardized. In order to avoid

2.3. Procedure

After initial contact with the principals of the selected schools, an

informative seminar was held for the teachers and administra-tion to explain
the research objectives and request the parent au-thorizations. Next, a letter
describing the study was sent to the parents, instructing them to indicate in
writing if they did not want their child to participate in the study (only 1% of
the parents did so). Participants anonymously and voluntarily filled out the
scales during a regular class period (55 min). Trained researchers
administered the instruments to the adolescents during the school day,
informing them at all times that their participation in the study was voluntary
and anonymous. Regarding family communication, adolescents were asked to
respond with the person they perceived as their mother or father during the
past year in mind. If one parent was deceased, we did not consider the
information. Students could refuse to answer if they found it difficult to do so.
Their privacy was guaranteed, reducing any possible social desirability
effects. This study was approved by The Ethics Committee of the University
of Valencia (Protocol Number: H1456762885511).

2.4. Statistical analyses

In order to examine the construct validity of the scale, Confir-matory

Factorial Analysis (CFA) using EQS (6.1) (Bentler, 1995) was performed. We
used the Maximum Likelihood estimation method and the SatorraeBentler
scaled chiesquare test for nonenormal data (Yuan & Bentler, 2000).
Moreover, we calculated the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the
TuckereLewis Index (TLI), where acceptable or good fit is indicated by
values above 0.90 or 0.95, respectively. Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) values of 0.05 or less indicate good model fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1998). Cronbach's alpha was also calculated. Factor load-ings were
assessed for statistical significance at the p < 0.01 level.

Next, statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package

SPSS, version 23, and missing values were handled using the regression
imputation method (Allison, 2001). First, descriptive analyses were carried
out to examine the frequency of cyberbul-lying and cybervictimization
behaviors. Family communication and family climate were fairly normally
distributed; however, both the cyberbullying and cybervictimization scales
were positively skewed (2.30 for cyberbullying and 1.88 for
cybervictimization scales). This means that most adolescents did not exhibit
high levels of the variables related to cyberbullying involvement, which is
very common when analyzing maladjustment outcomes and, in particular,
cyberbullying (e.g. Vazsonyi, Machackova, Sevcikova, Smahel, & Cerna,
2012). Next, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to analyze the
relationships among the study variables.

Then, a cluster analysis was performed with the variables “cybervictims”

and “cyberbullies” to identify the emerging groups according to the

15
 168 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173

clusters with few adolescents, we assigned adolescents scoring below 2.5
standard deviations on these measures a value of 2.5, and adolescents scoring
over 2.5 standard deviations a value of 2.5. Next, hierarchical cluster analysis
was performed using Ward's method, with squared Euclidean distances as the
similarity mea-sure. To determine the optimal number of clusters, we
examined the percentage change in the agglomeration coefficients, and we
analyzed the dendrogram. Second, a kemean cluster analysis was carried out
to classify adolescents into four groups (cyberbullies, cybervictims,
cyberbullyevictims, and noneinvolved). Due to the nature of cyberbullying,
repetition may be hard to assess. As sug-gested in previous studies (see
Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross, 2010), no established cuteoffs for being a
cyberbully or cybervic-tim were calculated.
potentially as harmful as repeated aggressive acts of violence (Modecki,
Barber, & Vernon, 2013; Runions, Bak, & Cross, 2016).
3.1.2. Correlations among cyberbullying, cybervictimization, family
climate, and parentechild communication
Before performing the cluster analysis, we first computed a zeroeorder
correlation among all the variables. As Table 1 shows, cyberbullying and
cybervictimization were significantly and posi-tively related to family conflict,
offensive communication with fa-ther and mother, and avoidant
communication with mother and father. Cyberbullying and cybervictimization
were negatively associated with cohesion, expressiveness, and open
communica-tion with the father and mother. Finally, family conflict was also
positively correlated with cyberbullying, but not with cybervictimization.

Next, several ANCOVAs were conducted to examine the differ-ences

among the cluster groups on the selected family setting variables, such as
openness in communication with Father/Mother, communication problems
with Father/Mother, cohesion, expres-siveness, and conflict, using gender and
academic grade level as covariates. Postehoc tests were applied using the
Bonferroni pro-cedure to determine which variables showed differences
3.2. Cluster analysis
between the groups. Etaesquared was used as an effectesize measure
accompanying the ANCOVA analysis.

We performed a cluster analysis in two phases. First, we con-ducted a

Finally, a multinomial regression analysis was carried out to determine the
impact of family variables, gender, and academic grade on the cluster groups.
Odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval were computed through regression
analysis to establish which variables were more associated with cyberbullies,
cyber-victims, and cyberbullyevictims.
3. Results
hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's method with squared Euclidean
Distance to determine the initial number of clusters. The solution and the
hierarchical cluster dendograms indicated a fourecluster solution supported
by theoretical bullying and cyberbullying groups. Second, a kemeans cluster
analysis was carried out to classify the participants into four groups. Based on
the adolescents' involvement in cyberbullying and cybervictim-ization, four
clusters emerged: noneinvolved (N ¼ 465; 43.78%), cyberbullies (N ¼ 300;
28.24%), cybervictims (N ¼ 99; 9.32%), and cyberbullyevictims (N ¼ 198;
18.64%). These groups coincided with previous studies in Spanish contexts
(see CuadradoeGordillo & FernandezeAntelo, 2014; GamezeGuadix et al.,
2015).

Next, we examined whether the groups were similar in terms of

3.1. Descriptive analyses
demographic variables. As Table 2 shows, the groups were equiv-alent in
terms of academic grade and type of family. Regarding gender, significant
differences were found between clusters. Boys were overrepresented in the
3.1.1. Frequency of cyberbullying and cybervictimization behaviors In the cluster groups of noneinvolved ado-lescents and cyberbullies, whereas girls
case of Cyberbullying, results showed that insulting or were overrepresented in the cyberbullyevictim group. Finally, the percentages
of boys and girls were similar in the cybervictim group.
ridiculing someone was the most frequent Cyberbullying behavior (M ¼ 1.54,
SD ¼ 0.74), whereas forcing someone to do things he/she did not want to do
by using threats was the least frequent Cyber-bullying behavior (M ¼ 1.11,
SD ¼ 0.39). As for Cybervictimization, results indicated that receiving
missed calls through mobile devices (M ¼ 1.54, SD ¼ 0.74) was the most 3.3. Differences in family relationships according to adolescents’
frequently reported Cybervic-timization, whereas the least frequent behavior involvement in cyberbullying
was “being forced to do things I did not want to do by using threats” (M ¼
1.07, SD ¼ 0.28). Even when the most frequently reported behaviors
occurred almost never and a few times (one or twice), we included all the
Several Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA) were carried out to test the
students in further analyses because any cyberaggression is
differences among the cluster groups of noneinvolved adolescents,
cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbullyevictims in their family
relationships efamily climate and parenteadolescent

Table 1

16
Pearson correlations among the variables in the study, mean and standard deviations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Cyberbullying 1

**
2. Cybervictimization 0.27 1
** **

3. Cohesion 0.16 ** 0.14** 1 **

0.08
4. Expresiveness 0.09 ** 1 **
0.41
**

5. Conflict 0.21 0.05 0.49 0.14 1

** * ** ** ** 1
6. OpenC Mother 0.17 0.23 0.37 0.36 0.22

** ** ** ** ** **

7. OffC Mother 0.15 ** 0.11 ** 0.25 **

0.13 ** 0.24* 0.21 1 **

8. AvoidC Mother 0.13 0.14 0.19 0.07 0.04 0.34 1

** 0.11 * ** ** ** ** ** 0.10 1
9. OpenC Father 0.15 0.15 0.40 0.28 0.56

** ** ** 0.37 ** ** 0.18 ** 0.22 ** ** 0.35 **

1
10. OffC Father 0.15 0.13 0.28 0.11 0.29 0.62 0.25

** ** ** ** 0.07 * ** 0.65 ** ** 0.25 ** 1

11. AvoidC Father 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.21 0.11

M (SD) 1.05 (1.16) 0.60 (0.98) 1.78 (0.21) 1.58 (0.20) 1.32 (0.18) 3.75 (0.93) 1.82 (0.85) 2.90 (0.72) 3.47 (0.89) 1.80 (0.77) 2.98 (0.72)

Note: M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; OpenC: Open Communication; OffC: Offensive Communication; AvoidC: Avoidant Communication.

* **
p < 0.05; p < 0.01.

17
 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173 169

Table 2

Sociodemographic variables.

Variables Total Sample Cluster groups c2

Non-involved Cyber bullies Cyber victims Cyber bully-victims

(N ¼ 465) (N ¼ 300) (N ¼ 99) (N ¼ 198)

Gender c2 (3) ¼ 12.11*

Boys 547 (52%) 248 (53%) 170 (57%) 46 (47%) 83 (42%)

Girls 515 (48%) 217 (47%) 130 (43%) 53 (54%) 115 (58%)

Academic Grade c2 (7) ¼ 9.01ns

First cycle CSE 475 (45%) 215 (46%) 120 (40%) 55 (56%) 85 (43%)

Second cycle CSE 420 (39%) 182 (39%) 130 (43%) 31 (31%) 77 (39%)

Pre-university 167 (16%) 68 (15%) 50 (17%) 13 (13%) 36 (18%)

Parent status c2 (6) ¼ 6.28ns

Living with both parents 814 (77%) 365 (79%) 227 (76%) 72 (73%) 150 (76%)

Living with one parent 248 (23%) 100 (22%) 73 (24%) 27 (27%) 48 (24%)

Note: ns: non significant; CSE: Compulsory Secondary Education.

* ***
p < 0.05; p < 0.001.

were 8.42 times more likely to become cyberbullies than the noneinvolved
group. Furthermore, boys were more likely to be cyberbullies (Exp(B) ¼
2.37), compared to the
communicatione using gender and academic grade as covariates. As Table 3
shows, there were significant differences among the cluster groups for all the
family variables. Cyberbullyevictims scored significantly higher on family
conflict than cybervictims and noneinvolved students. Cyberbullyevictims
also had significantly higher scores than the other groups on offensive
communication with the mother and father, higher scores than the Table 3
noneinvolved group on avoidant communication with the mother and father,
and higher scores than cyberbullies on avoidant communication with the
father. On the other hand, cyberbullyevictims scored the lowest on family
cohesion and expressiveness. The noneinvolved group reported the highest
levels of open communication with the mother and father.

3.4. Family predictors of involvement in cyberbullying

Multinomial regression was performed to determine the effects of gender,

academic grade, family climate (cohesion, expressive-ness, and conflict), and
family communication (openness and offensiveness with mother and father)
on the involvement roles in cyberbullying (noneinvolved, cyberbullies,
cybervictims, and cyberbullyevictims). The interaction between gender and
aca-demic grade was also examined. The noneinvolved group served as the
reference group. Results showed that the regression model was statistically
2 2
significant, c (42) ¼ 175.79, p < 0.001, e2LL ¼ 2485.69, Nagelkerke R ¼
0.17. As Table 4 reveals, adolescents in families with higher levels of conflict
18
 There is very little literature about the family factors linked to the
different roles involved in cyberbullying and, specifically, the profile of
cyberbullyevictim. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to advance
noneinvolved group. However, in lower secondary, boys are less likely to be
the knowledge in this research area by studying the relationships between
cyberbullies than girls. Adolescents who reported high levels of avoidant
some important family vari-ables and the roles of cyberbully, cybervictim,
communication with the father and lower levels of open communication with
cyberbullyevictim, and noneinvolved.
the mother were more likely to be cybervictims (Exp(B) ¼ 1.64 for open
communication with the fa-ther and 0.61 for open communication with the
mother) and cyberbullyevictims (Exp(B) ¼ 1.77 for open communication
with the father and 0.41 for open communication with the mother). The first aim of our study was to analyze the prevalence of cyberbullies,
cybervictims, cyberbullyevictims, and noneinvolved adolescents in a Spanish
Cyberbullyevictims were also more likely to report higher levels of family
sample by examining gender and age. Our data revealed that more than half of
conflict (Exp(B) ¼ 2.67) than noneinvolved students.
the adolescents in the study are involved in cyberbullying, and 28.4% of the
involved adoles-cents are cyberbullies, followed by cyberbullyevictims
(18.64%) and cybervictims (9.3%). The high prevalence of cyberbullies found
in our study agrees with results obtained by Calvete et al. (2010), who found
4. Discussion
that 44 percent of Spanish adolescents had engaged in

Means, standard deviations, and differences on family climate and parent-child communication among non-involved, cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbully-victims.

Variables Cluster groups F(3, 1062) h2 Post hoc comparison

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Non-involved Cyber bully Cyber victim Cyber bully-victim

***
Cohesion 1.81 (0.19) 1.78 (0.02) 1.79 (0.20) 1.71 (0.23) 10.61 0.03 1>2>4

3>4

**
Expressiveness 1.60 (0.01) 1.58 (0.01) 1.59 (0.02) 1.53 (0.01) 5.00 0.01 1, 2, 3 > 4
***
Conflict 1.28 (0.01) 1.35 (0.01) 1.29 (0.02) 1.36 (0.01) 13.76 0.04 2, 4 > 1, 3

***
OpenC Mother 3.96 (0.04) 3.76 (0.05) 3.58 (0.09) 3.31 (0.06) 24.86 0.07 1>2>4

1>3

***
OffC Mother 1.72 (0.04) 1.86 (0.05) 1.77 (0.09) 2.06 (0.06) 7.85 0.02 4 > 1, 2, 3
***
AvoidC Mother 2.81 (0.75) 2.93 (0.71) 2.87 (0.69) 3.10 (0.64) 7.48 02 4>1
***
OpenC Father 3.64 (0.04) 3.41 (0.05) 3.39 (0.09) 3.22 (0.06) 12.03 03 1 > 2, 3, 4
***
OffC Father 1.69 (0.04) 1.83 (0.04) 1.79 (0.08) 2.05 (0.05) 10.24 0.03 4 > 1, 2, 3

***
AvoidC Father 2.87 (0.77) 2.98 (0.71) 3.04 (0.69) 3.22 (0.64) 7.48 0.02 4,3 > 1, 2

Note: OpenC: Open Communication; OffC: Offensive Communication; AvoidC: Avoidant Communication.

a ¼ 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

19
170 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173

*
Conflict 0.99 0.57 3.01 2.68

***
Table 4 OpenC Mother 0.70 0.12 33.87 0.50

OpenC Father 0.03 0.14 0.03 1.03

Multinomial logistic regression model predicting gender, academic degree, family climate, and
parent-adolescent communication among cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbully-victims. AvoidC Mother 0.10 0.17 0.35 1.11

**
AvoidC Father 0.57 0.18 10.31 1.77

a
Group Effect b SE Wald Exp(B) * **
p < 0.05; p < 0.01;
***
p < 0.001.
**
Cyberbullies Intercept 4.58 1.38 02 Note:
11.
b *
a Non-involved was used as the normative group.
Gender 0.86 0.40 4.76 2.37
b Gender (1): Males.
c
AD 1 0.46 0.35 1.79 1.59
c AD: Academic Degree; 1: First cycle; 2: Second cycle.
AD2 0.28 0.35 0.66 1.33

**
Gender x AD1 1.21 0.46 6.88 0.30
some type of cyberbullying. One possible explanation for this high incidence
Gender x AD2 0.50 0.46 1.15 0.61
of cyberbullies in Spain is the almost generalized use of smartphones in the
Cohesion 0.55 0.48 1.31 1.73 young population; 98% of 14eyeareold Spanish adolescents have a
smartphone (Ditrendia Digital Marketing Trends, 2016). This situation is
Expresiveness 0.21 0.44 0.22 1.23
combined with the fact that the virtual world has specific characteristics that
Conflict 2.13 0.50 18.50
***
8.43 seem to contribute to a greater expression of violent behaviors (Buelga et al.,
2015; Kowalski et al., 2014; Zych et al., 2016).
OpenC Mother 0.15 0.11 1.79 0.86

OpenC Father 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.99

AvoidC Mother 0.08 0.15 0.27 1.08 Thus, disinhibition, deeindividuation, invisibility, and ano-nymity in
Internet (Dehue, Bolmon, & Vollink, 2008; Kokkinos et al., 2014; Schultze et
AvoidC Father 0.13 0.15 0.79 1.14 al., 2015) may also explain the greater involvement of Spanish adolescents in
Cybervictims Intercept 1.08 2.00
cyberaggression behaviors, both as cyberbullies and as cyberbullyevictims.
Therefore, as Kokkinos et al. (2014) suggests, it is possible that, due to the
b 0.29
online disinhibition effect, cybervictims may be empowered to engage in
Gender 0.30 0.62 0.23 1.34 retaliatory attacks online. The Internet allows adolescents to hide their
AD 1
c identity, which can explain the fact that this dual role is much more common
0.58 0.50 1.32 1.78
in the virtual environment than in traditional bullying (Aboujaoude et al.,
AD2 0.12 0.52 0.05 1.13 2015; CuadradoeGordillo & FernandezeAntelo, 2014; GamezeGuadix et al.,
2015; Garaigordobil & MartínezeValderrey, 2016), where this profile is
Gender x AD1 0.79 0.69 1.31 1.13

Gender x AD2 0.66 0.73 0.82 0.45

Cohesion 0.01 0.71 0.00 1.01

Expresiveness 0.67 0.65 1.05 1.95

Conflict 0.32 0.74 0.19 ** 0.52

OpenC Mother 0.49 0.15 10.76 0.61

OpenC Father 0.10 0.17 0.34 0.91

AvoidC Mother 0.18 0.21 0.70 * 0.84

AvoidC Father 0.49 0.22 5.15 1.64

Cyberbully-victims Intercept
b 1.50 1.52 0.97

Gender 0.35 0.45 0.61 0.70

c
AD 1 0.06 0.35 0.03 0.94

AD2 0.30 0.36 0.71 0.74

Gender x AD1 0.40 0.53 0.58 6.67

Gender x AD2 0.17 0.54 0.11 1.19

Cohesion 0.29 0.52 0.31 0.75

Expresiveness 0.14 0.51 0.08 1.15

20
 with frequent discussions (Fanti et al., 2012; Hemphill & Heerde,
less frequent (Estevez et al., 2010; Navarro, Larranaga,~ & Yubero, 2015;
Olweus, 2001).
2014; Tanrikulu & Campbell, 2015) and offensive communication

These social and technological circumstances can explain the high

percentage of cyberbullyevictims and cyberbullies found in the present study, with their parents (Buelga et al., 2016; Elgar et al., 2014; Larranaga~
coinciding with previous studies (CuadradoeGordillo & FernandezeAntelo,
2014; GamezeGuadix et al., 2015). In fact, Romera et al. (2016) observed that et al., 2016). However, cybervictims, compared to the two previous
the cyberbullyevictim was the prevalent role in the involvement in cybernetic
violence. Moreover, authors such as Festl et al. (2017) and
SchultzeeKrumbholz et al. (2015) concluded that the pro-portion of roles, present more welleadjusted and less problematic family
perpetratorevictims has been underestimated in prior research.
relationships. Thus, specifically, unlike cyberbullyevictims, cyber-

victims rate their family climate (cohesion, expressiveness, and

Furthermore, regarding the relationship of gender and the roles, the results
showed a larger percentage of boys in the group of cyberbullies and more girls conflict) more positively, and they present less offensive commu-
among the cybervictims and cyber-bullyevictims. These gender differences
agree with results ob-tained in previous studies showing that boys participate
more as cyberbullies (Bayraktar et al., 2015; Fanti et al., 2012; Garaigordobil, nication with their parents.
2016; SchultzeeKrumbholz et al., 2015), and girls as cybervictims
Certainly, these family variables, family climate and family
(Larranaga~ et al., 2016; Mishna et al., 2012; Zych et al., 2016). Regarding communication, have considerable weight in all these roles. Along
the role of cyberbullyevictims, our results coincide with those found by
Hinduja and Patchin (2012) and SchultzeeKrumbholz et al. (2015), who find a
higher prevalence in girls. However, other authors have observed no
differences be-tween the sexes (Bayraktar et al., 2015), or they have even
shown a greater participation of girls in this dual role (CuadradoeGordillo &
FernandezeAntelo, 2014). Consequently, this interesting question requires
more scientific studies to shed light on the inconsistent results found in the
research on this dual role.

Regarding the main objective of our study, the results show that the family
context plays an important role in cyberbullying behavior and, particularly, in
cyberbullyevictims. Our data reveal that this latter group perceives a negative
family climate and has poor parentechild communication. Specifically, this
profile per-ceives less cohesion and family expressiveness in their family
climate than the other roles. In addition, in their communication patterns,
cyberbullyevictims present communication difficulties with the mother, as
they perceive the communication to be offensive, closed, and not very
empathic, and with the father, as they perceive the communication to be
offensive and that talking about certain controversial topics is avoided. These
data support our first hypothesis and agree with previous studies reporting that
cyberbullyevictims present the most conflictive profile, with the greatest
number of family problems and the worst parental ties (Bayraktar et al., 2015;
Kokkinos et al., 2016). These findings also agree with traditional bullying,
where the bullyevictims, compared to the other roles, show the worst
psychological and family adjustment (Duggins, Kuperminc, Henrich,
SmallseGlover, & Perilla, 2016; Kokkinos et al., 2014; Lereya et al., 2013).

Moreover, as expected, apart from the cyberbullyevictims,

another role that presents family problems is that of cyberbullies,

who obtained high scores on family conflict. In previous studies,

similar results were observed for the family environment of

cyberbullies, suggesting the existence of a negative family climate

21
 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173 171

OrtegaeBaron et al., 2016) seem to be key variables that should be studied

these lines, the multinomial regression analysis performed in our study
provides interesting results about the predictive weight of these family
variables in the analyzed roles. Thus, the data suggest that adolescents who
perceive less open communication with their mother and more avoidant
communication with their father are more likely to become victimized. These
findings agree with those obtained previously, and they are congruent with
studies that have consistently shown that positive, open, and fluid
communication with parents is associated with less cybervictimization
(Appel, Stiglbauer, Batinic, & Holtz, 2014; Buelga et al., 2016; Cross et al.,
more in depth in future studies.
In spite of the obvious contributions of our study, which sheds light on the
family context of the profiles involved in cyberbul-lying, it is important to
mention some limitations. First, as the study has a crossesectional design, a
longitudinal study would be needed to understand how the different
cyberbullying roles can change over time depending on the weight of the
family variables. Moreover, this longitudinal study could include other family

2015; Fanti et al., 2012; Navarro, Larranaga,~ et al., 2015; OrtegaeBaron et

al., 2016). Our results also coincide with the study by Larranaga~ et al.
(2016), who show that cybervictims pre-sent avoidant communication
patterns with their parents. This absence and avoidance of communication
with parents contributes to prolonging cybervictimization in time, due to a
lack of social support from adults in resolving the bullying situation
(MakrieBotsari & Karagianni, 2014; OrtegaeBaron et al., 2016; Van Dijk et
al., 2013).

In addition, also in consonance with our descriptive results, we observe

that family conflict and the sex variable (being a boy) are predictors of the
cyberbully profile. With regard to sex, our results are coherent, as mentioned
above, with numerous studies sug-gesting that boys engage more in
cyberaggressions than girls (Buelga et al., 2015; Kowalski et al., 2014;
OrtegaeBaron et al., 2017). However, we have also shown the existence of an
interac-tion between sex and age, so that the probability of being a male
aggressor is lower at younger ages. This result is congruent with the
metaeanalysis by Barlett and Coyne (2014). The authors conclude that the
participation of male cyberbullies increases in mid and late adolescence and is
lower at younger ages.

Regarding family conflict, this family variable undoubtedly predicts the

role of cyberbully. This result agrees with previous research showing that
conflictive family relationships are a family risk factor for cyberbullying
(Buelga et al., 2016; Kowalski et al., 2014; Tanrikulu & Campbell, 2015), and
other violent and antiso-cial behaviors (Barrett & McIntosh, 2015; Estevez et
al., 2010; Yang

& McLoyd, 2015).

Finally, and considering the family profile of cyberbul-lyevictims, which

has hardly been studied in the current research, it is quite interesting that
participants identified as cyberbul-lyevictims share the significant difficulties
in the family context of both cyberbullies and cybervictims. Thus, our results
reveal that the profile with the most dysfunctional family relationships is that
of cyberbullyevictim. This finding, which coincides with previous studies
(Bayraktar et al., 2015; Kokkinos et al., 2016), supports our second
hypothesis that family climate and negative communication will have greater
weight in predicting the role of cyberbullyevictims.

Furthermore, as expected, both family conflict, a variable that was shown

to be significant in cyberbullies, and the perception of closed communication
with the mother and avoidant communi-cation with the father, relevant
predictors of the cybervictim pro-file, predict the role of cyberbullyevictim.
Therefore, family conflict (Duggins et al., 2016; Hemphills et al., 2012) and
open and avoidant family communication (Larranaga~ et al., 2016;

22
 Ethical approval

variables, such as online parental supervision, that have not been utilized in
the present study, but have been studied as risk factors in cyberbullying
(Navarro et al., 2013; Sasson & Mesch, 2014). In addition, another limitation All procedures performed in studies involving human partici-pants were
of the present study involves the possible effects of social desirability and bias in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti-tutional and/or national
in the adolescents' answers on the selfereports. Even so, the evaluation of research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later
violent behaviors through selfereports in adolescents is acceptable (Buelga & amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Pons, 2012; Navarro, Yubero, & Larra, 2016; OrtegaeBaron et al., 2016).
Moreover, due to the rapid and massive expansion of the use of smartphones
in Spain since the year 2013 (European Commission, 2015), the
cybervictimization scale that measures bullying through the mobile phone, on
the one hand, and through the Internet, on the other, might repeat information
because Spanish adolescents access the Internet through the smartphone. In
fact, in response to these rapid technological changes, the authors of the
present study are vali-dating a new cybervictimization instrument that
measures bullying behaviors through ICTs on one unique scale. It is also
important to consider that relationships between family factors and
cyberbullying involvement could also be reversed, so that the child's
participation in cyberbullying behaviors can negatively affect the family
climate and parentechild communication, rather than family factors fostering
the child's violent cybernetic behavior. Therefore, future research could
provide dyadic data from the parents, given that only the child's perspective
was measured in the present study.

In summary, although our study presents some limitations, our results

undoubtedly contribute to advancing the current research on the family factors
linked to the different roles involved in the growing behavior of
cyberbullying. Although numerous studies have examined the prevalence of
cyberbullying and cybervictim-ization, research on the family correlates of
cyberbullying in per-petrators and victims is scant. The present study
contributes to the extant literature by examining family climate and paren-
teadolescent communication, factors hypothesized to be related to
cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbullyevictims.

Specifically, this study contributes to better understanding

cyberbullyevictims, a numerous group with a particularly prob-lematic family
profile, as described above. The implications of these results reveal the need
to include the family in cyberbullying intervention programs as a key variable
in preventing and reducing the growing problems of cybernetic violence
among children and adolescents. The family's responsibility in the healthy use
of the new space and communication technologies is absolutely neces-sary in
our country, given that almost 100% of Spanish adolescents have latest
generation smartphones at very early ages. Families must take responsibility
for their children's correct use of these devices because, as this study shows,
positive family communica-tion and a family climate characterized by warm
involvement are key factors in preventing cyberbullying. Therefore, apart
from children and adolescents, it is also important to involve parents in
cyberbullying prevention programs in the school context. Parent classes can
be held to work on protective family factors for the proper use of information
and communication technologies by their children, who are exposed to a
growing number of dangers in Internet.

23
172 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173

Bayraktar, F., Machackova, H., Dedkova, L., Cerna, A., & Sevcíkova, A. (2015). Cyberbullying
the discriminant factors among cyberbullies, Cybervictims, and cyberbullyevictims in a
Czech adolescent sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(18), 3192e3216.
Funding http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514555006.

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multi-variate
This research was financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Software.

Competitiveness under the National Program of Research and Innovation

Buelga, S. (2016). La escuela y las nuevas tecnologías. In E. Estevez, & G. Musitu
(IþDþI 2012): PSI2012e.

(Eds.), Intervencion psicoeducativa en el ambito familiar, social y comunitario (pp.

Conflict of interest
122e151). Madrid: Ediciones Paraninfo.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Buelga, S., Cava, M. J., & Musitu, G. (2010). Cyberbullying: Victimizacion entre

adolescentes a traves del telefono movil y de internet. Psicothema, 22(4), 784e789.

https://goo.gl/J2Q397.
Informed consent
Buelga, S., Iranzo, B., Cava, M. J., & Torralba, E. (2015). Psychological profile of adolescent
cyberbullying aggressors. International Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 382e406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2015.1016754.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included
in the study. Buelga, S., MartínezeFerrer, B., & Musitu, G. (2016). Family relationships and

cyberbullying. In R. Navarro, S. Yubero, & E. Larranaga~ (Eds.), Cyberbullying across the

References globe: Gender, family and mental health (pp. 99e114). Basel, CH: Springer International
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25552-1.

Aboujaoude, E., Savage, M. W., Starcevic, V., & Salame, W. O. (2015). Cyberbullying: Review Buelga, S., & Pons, J. (2012). Agresiones entre adolescentes a traves del telefono movil y de
of an old problem gone viral. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(1), 10 e18.
Internet. Psychosocial Intervention, 21, 91e101. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5093/in2012v21n1a2.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.011.

Accordino, D. B., & Accordino, M. P. (2011). An exploratory study of faceetoeface and Calvete, E., Orue, I., Estevez, A., Villardon, L., & Padilla, P. (2010). Cyberbullying in
cyberbullying in sixth grade students. American Secondary Education, 40, 14e30. adolescents: Modalities and aggressors' profile. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5),
https://goo.gl/FxFDpD. 1128e1135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017.

Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data. New York: Sage Publications Inc. https://goo.gl/ KNQkZy. Cava, M. J., Musitu, G., & Murgui, S. (2007). Individual and social risk factors related to
victimization in a sample of Spanish adolescents. Psychological Reports, 101, 275e290.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pro.101.1.275.290.
Antoniadou, N., & Kokkinos, C. M. (2015). Cyber and school bullying: Same or different
phenomena? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 363e372. http:// Chang, F. C., Lee, C. M., Chiu, C. H., Hsi, W. Y., Huang, T. F., & Pan, Y. C. (2013). Re-
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.09.013. lationships among cyberbullying, school bullying, and mental health in Taiwanese
adolescents. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 454e462. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/josh.12050.
Appel, M., Stiglbauer, B., Batinic, B., & Holtz, P. (2014). Internet use and verbal aggression:
The moderating role of parents and peers. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 235e241.
https://goo.gl/hmfzZj. Cross, D., Barnes, A., Papageorgiou, A., Hadwen, K., Hearn, L., & Lester, L. (2015). A
socialeecological framework for understanding and reducing cyberbullying
Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Sorrentino, A. (2015). “Am I at risk of cyberbully-ing”? A
narrative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and
cybervictimization: The risk and needs assessment approach. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 23, 36e51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.avb.2015.05.014.

Barlett, C., & Coyne, S. M. (2014). A metaeanalysis of sex differences in cyberebullying

behavior: The moderating role of age. Aggressive Behavior, 40(5), 474e488.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21555.

Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1982). Parenteadolescent communication scale. In H. D. Olson

(Ed.), Family inventories: Inventories used in a national survey of families across the
family life cycle (pp. 33e48). St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

Barrett, M., & McIntosh, M. (2015). The antiesocial family. Brooklyn (NY): Verso Books.
https://goo.gl/yuTnoj.

24
 Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbul-lying
behaviors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 109e117. http://dx.doi.org/
identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Journal of Psychol-ogy, 217,
10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.016.
205e213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.205.
CuadradoeGordillo, I., & FernandezeAntelo, I. (2014). Cyberspace as a generator of changes in
the aggressiveevictim role. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 225e233.
Griffin, R., & Gross, A. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.070.
directions for research. Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 9, 379e400.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00033-8.
DeHue, F., Bolman, C., & Vollink,€ T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters' experiences and
parental perception. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217e223. http://
Hemphill, S. A., & Heerde, J. A. (2014). Adolescent predictors of young adult cyberbullying
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0008.
perpetration and victimization among Australian youth. Journal of Adolescent Health,
55(4), 580e587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jadohealth.2014.04.014.
Ditrendia Digital Marketing Trends. (2016). Informe mobile en Espana~ y en el mundo 2015.
https://goo.gl/AGi5JF.
Hemphills, S., Kotevski, A., Tollit, M., Smith, R., Herrenkohl, T., Toumbourou, J., et al.
Duggins, S. D., Kuperminc, G. P., Henrich, C. C., SmallseGlover, C., & Perilla, J. L. (2016).
(2012). Longitudinal predictors of cyber and traditional bullying perpetration in Australian
Aggression among adolescent victims of school bullying: Protective roles of family and
Secondary School students. Journal of Adolescence Health, 51, 59e65.
school connectedness. Psychology of Violence, 6(2), 205e212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.11.019.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039439.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Neither an epidemic nor a rarity. European
Elgar, F. J., Napoletano, A., Saul, G., Dirks, M. A., Craig, W., Poteat, V. P., et al. (2014).
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 539e543. http://dx.doi.org/
Cyberbullying victimization and mental health in adolescents and the moder-ating role of
10.1080/17405629.2012.706448.
family dinners. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(11), 1015e1022. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.1223.
Hoetger, L. A., Hazen, K. P., & Brank, E. M. (2015). All in the family: A retrospective study
comparing sibling bullying and peer bullying. Journal of Family Violence, 30(1), 103e111.
Estevez, E., Jimenez, T., & Moreno, D. (2010). Cuando las víctimas de violencia escolar se
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9651-0.
convierten en agresores: “¿Quien va a defenderme?”. European Journal of Education and
Psychology, 3, 177e186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1989/ ejep.v3i2.58.
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization
in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4),
311e322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003.
Estevez, E., Musitu, G., & Herrero, J. (2005). El rol de la comunicacion familiar y del ajuste
escolar en la salud mental del adolescente. Salud Mental, 28(4), 81 e89.
https://goo.gl/1PGqXs.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensi-tivity to
underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424e453.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424.
European Commission. (2015). Cyber security (special eurobarometer 423). Brussels, BE:
European Commission. http://dx.doi.org/10.2837/411118.
Juvoven, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?dBullying experi-ences in
cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496e505. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1746-
1561.2008.00335.x.
Fanti, K. A., Demetriou, A. G., & Hawa, V. V. (2012). A longitudinal study of cyber-bullying:
Examining riskand protective factors. European Journal of Develop-
Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyberbullying: Who are the
mental Psychology, 9(2), 168e181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 17405629.2011.643169.

FernandezeBallesteros, R., & Sierra, B. (1989). Escalas de Clima Social FES, WES, CIES y
CES. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.

Festl, R., Vogelgesang, J., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. (2017). Longitudinal patterns of
involvement in cyberbullying: Results from a latent transition analysis. Com-puters in
Human Behavior, 66, 7e15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.027.

GamezeGuadix, M., Gini, G., & Calvete, E. (2015). Stability of cyberbullying victimization
among adolescents: Prevalence and association with bullyevictim status and psychosocial
adjustment. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 140e148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.007.

Garaigordobil, M. (2016). Conducta antisocial: Conexion con bullying/cyberbullying y

estrategias de resolucion de conflictos. Psychosocial Intervention. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2015.12.002.

Garaigordobil, M., & MartínezeValderrey, V. (2016). Impact of Cyberprogram 2.0 on different

types of school violence and aggressiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7,

428. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00428.

Georgiou, S. N., Ioannou, M., & Stavrinides, P. (2016). Parenting styles and bullying at school:
The mediating role of locus of control. International Journal of School & Educational
Psychology, 1e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1225237.

Giumetti, G. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (2016). Cyberbullying matters: Examining the incremental
impact of cyberbullying on outcomes over and above traditional

bullying in North America. In R. Navarro, S. Yubero, & E. Larranaga~ (Eds.),

Cyberbullying across the globe: Gender, family and mental health (pp. 117e130). Basel,
CH: Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25552-1.

25
S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173 173

26
 victims?: A comparison of victimization in internet chatrooms and victimiza-tion in school. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 21(1), 25 e36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105.21.1.25.

Keelan, C. M., Schenk, A. M., McNally, M. R., & Fremouw, W. J. (2014). The inter-personal worlds of bullies parents, peers, and partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(7),
1338e1353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260513506278.

Kokkinos, C. M., Antoniadou, N., Asdre, A., & Voulgaridou, K. (2016). Parenting and internet behavior predictors of cyberebullying and cyberevictimization among preadolescents.
Deviant Behavior, 37(4), 439e455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01639625.2015.1060087.

Kokkinos, C. M., Antoniadou, N., Dalara, E., Koufogazou, A., & Papatziki, A. (2013). Cyberebullying, personality and coping among preeadolescents. International Journal of Cyber
Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3, 55e69. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4018/ijcbpl.2013100104.

Kokkinos, C. M., Antoniadou, N., & Markos, A. (2014). Cyberebullying: An investi-gation of the psychological profile of university student participants. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 204e214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.appdev.2014.04.001.

Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta eanalysis of cyberbullying research among
youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073e1137. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0035618.

Larranaga,~ E., Yubero, S., Ovejero, A., & Navarro, R. (2016). Loneliness, parentechild communication and cyberbullying victimization among Spanish youths. Com-puters in Human
Behavior, 65, 1e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.015.

Lereya, S. T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta eanalysis study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(12),
1091e1108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001.

MakrieBotsari, E., & Karagianni, G. (2014). Cyberbullying in Greek adolescents: The role of parents. ProcediaeSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3241e3253. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.742.

MartínezeFerrer, B., Moreno, D., Amador, L., & Orford, J. (2011). School victimization among adolescents. An analysis from an ecological perspective. Psychosocial Intervention,
20(2), 149e160. http://dx.doi.org/10.5093/in2011v20n2a3.

MartínezeFerrer, B., Musitu, G., Murgui, S., & Amador, L. V. (2009). Conflicto marital, comunicacion familiar y ajuste escolar en adolescentes. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 26,
27e40. https://goo.gl/okVBCK.

MartínezeHerves, M., Kramer, T., & Hickey, N. (2014). EPAe0731eHow parenting style influences ICT use and cyberbullying in a sample of secondary students in the UK. European
Psychiatry, 29(S1), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0924-9338(14) 78083-6.

Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 387e393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ cpb.2009.0068.

Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport of the Spanish Government. (2014). Sta-tistics. https://goo.gl/6ijhB6.

Mishna, F., KhouryeKassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully evictims. Children and Youth Services
Review, 34(1), 63e70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2011.08.032.

Modecki, K. L., Barber, B. L., & Vernon, L. (2013). Mapping developmental precursors of cyber eaggression: Trajectories of risk predict perpetration and victimization. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 651e661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-012-9887-z.

Navarro, R., Yubero, S., & Larranaga,~ E. (Eds.). (2016). Cyberbullying across the globe: Gender, family and mental health. Switzerland: Springer International Publish-ing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25552-1.

Navarro, R., Larranaga,~ E., & Yubero, S. (2015). Gender identity, genderetyped per-sonality traits and school bullying: Victims, bullies and bullyevictims. Child Indicators Research,
1e20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12187-015-9300-z.

Navarro, R., RuizeOliva, R., Larranaga,~ E., & Yubero, S. (2015). The impact of cyberbullying and social bullying on optimism, global and school erelated happiness and life
satisfaction among 10e12eyeareold schoolchildren. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 10(1), 15e36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9292-0.

27
Navarro, R., Serna, C., Martínez, V., & RuizeOliva, R. (2013). The role of Internet use and parental mediation on cyberbullying victimization among Spanish children from rural
public schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 725e745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0137-2.

Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and
victimized (pp. 3e20). New York: Guilford Press. https://goo.gl/ jjpFPJ.

28
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751 e780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-clinpsy-
050212-185516.

OrtegaeBaron, J., Buelga, S., & Cava, M. J. (2016). The influence of school and family environment on adolescent victims of cyberbullying. Comunicar, 46, 57 e65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C46-2016-06.

OrtegaeBaron, J., Buelga, S., Cava, M. J., & Torralba, E. (2017). School violence and attitude toward authority of student perpetrators of cyberbullying. Journal of
Psychodidactics, 22(1), 14e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.16398.

Perren, S., Corcoran, L., Cowie, H., Dehue, F., Garcia, D. J., Mc Guckin, C., …Vollink,€ T. (2012). Tackling cyberbullying: Review of empirical evidence regarding suc-cessful
responses by students, parents, and schools. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 283e292. http://dx.doi.org/10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.244.

Perren, S., Dooley, J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2010). Bullying in school and cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4, 28. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1186/1753-2000-4-28.

Pontzer, D. (2010). A theoretical test of bullying behavior: Parenting, personality, and the bully/victim relationship. Journal of Family Violence, 25(3), 259 e273.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9289-5.

Protegeles. (2014). Menores de edad y conectividad en Espana:~ Tablets y Smartphones.

https://goo.gl/K4cvH9.

Romera, E. M., Cano, J. J., GarcíaeFernandez, C. M., & OrtegaeRuiz, R. (2016). Cyberbullying: Social competence, motivation and peer relationships. Comu-nicar, 24(48),
71e79. http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C48-2016-07.

Runions, K. C., Bak, M., & Cross, D. (2016). Cyber aggression. In R. J. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 1e10). Basel, Switzerland: Springer Interna-tional
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32132-5_780-1.

Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28(1), 30e44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.90004.

Sanchez, R., Leon, C., MartínezeFerrer, B., & Moreno, R. (2015). Adolescentes agre-

sores en la escuela. Un analisis desde la perspectiva de genero. Feminismos, 25, 111e131. http://dx.doi.org/10.14198/fem.2015.25.07.

Sasson, H., & Mesch, G. (2014). Parental mediation, peer norms and risky online behavior among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 32 e38. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.025.

SchultzeeKrumbholz, A., Gobel,€ K., Scheithauer, H., Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Tsorbatzoudis, H., …Smith, P. (2015). A comparison of classification approaches for cyberbullying
and traditional bullying using data from six European coun-tries. Journal of School Violence, 14(1), 47e65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 15388220.2014.961067.

Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisen, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and stra-tegies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 26e32. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024.

Tanrikulu, I., & Campbell, M. (2015). Correlates of traditional bullying and cyber-bullying perpetration among Australian students. Children and Youth Services Review, 55,
138e146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.06.001.

Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyber bullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26,
277e287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.

Van Dijk, M. P., Branje, S., Keijsers, L., Hawk, S. T., Hale, W. W., & Meeus, W. (2013). Self econcept clarity across adolescence: Longitudinal associations with open
communication with parents and internalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1861e1876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0055-x.

Vazsonyi, A. T., Machackova, H., Sevcikova, A., Smahel, D., & Cerna, A. (2012). Cyberbullying in context: Direct and indirect effects by low self econtrol across 25 European
countries. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 210e227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.644919.

Yang, G. S., & McLoyd, V. C. (2015). Do parenting and family characteristics moderate the relation between peer victimization and antisocial behavior? A 5 eyear longitudinal
study. Social Development, 24(4), 748e765. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/sode.12118.

29
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psy-chology and
Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308e1316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00328.x.

Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihoodebased methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Meth-odology,
30(1), 165e200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0081-1750.00078.

Zych, I., OrtegaeRuiz, R., & MaríneLopez, I. (2016). Cyberbullying: A systematic review of research, its prevalence and assessment issues in Spanish studies. Psicología
Educativa, 22(1), 5e18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2016.03.002.

30