cyberbullying research article

• Open access
• Published: 17 January 2018

Cyberbullying a modern form of bullying: let’s talk about this health and social problem

• Pietro Ferrara   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9449-3464 1 , 2 ,
• Francesca Ianniello 1 ,
• Alberto Villani 3 &
• Giovanni Corsello 4  

Italian Journal of Pediatrics volume  44 , Article number:  14 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

154k Accesses

35 Citations

32 Altmetric

Metrics details

Cyberbullying or electronic aggression has already been designated as a serious public health threat. Cyberbullying should also be considered as a cause for new onset psychological symptoms, somatic symptoms of unclear etiology or a drop in academic performance. Pediatricians should be trained to play a major role in caring for and supporting the social and developmental well-being of children.

Cyberbullying or electronic aggression has already been designated as a serious public health threat and elicited warnings to the general public from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [ 1 ]. The term appears to have been coined in 2000 in Canada by the owner of a Web site dedicated to preventing traditional (face-to-face) bullying [ 1 ]. Tokunaga defined the phenomenon as “any behavior performed through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort on others” [ 2 ]. This definition highlights several important cyberbullying features: the technology component, the hostile nature of the act, the intent to cause suffering, considered by most scholars to be crucial to the definition, and repetitiveness [ 1 ].

Common forms of cyberbullying involve mobile phones (bullying by phone calls, text messages, picture/video clip bullying including so-called ‘happy slapping’) or using the internet (bullying by emails, chat room, through instant messaging and via websites, including blogs) [ 3 , 4 ].

Some twenty-first century factors have contributed to making cyberbullying a public health concern: the increasing penetration of networked computers and mobile phones among young people, the advent of social media and the reliance on new connectivity tools to the point where many would rather tolerate negative effects than be disconnected [ 1 ].

Young people today have direct access to the Internet from personal computers and mobile devices, whether at home, schools or in public places. Reports from 2012 indicate that 95% of American teenagers use the Internet and, of those, 81% use social media [ 1 ]. As early as 2009, polls showed that more than half of adolescents were logging on to a social media website more than once per day and that 22% logged on to a preferred website more than 10 times per day [ 5 ]. Computer time accounts for up to 1.5 h per day; half of this is spent in social networking, playing games, or viewing videos [ 6 ].

Adolescents are connected to social media at a time when their levels of social and emotional development leave them vulnerable to peer pressure and when they have a limited capacity to self-regulate [ 5 ].

Cyberbullying victims may underreport, too, for fear their parents will restrict their time on the Internet/cell phones or discover information that the adolescents themselves have posted on the web, for fear of punishment by the bully or for embarrassment about being perceived as weak [ 1 , 7 ].

Cyberbullying have its own identifying characteristics, which include: the possible anonymity of the bully, the larger potential audience for the abuse being carried out, the difficulty of disconnecting oneself from the cyber environment and the absence of the direct face to face contact which is present in many types of traditional bullying [ 4 , 8 ].

Anonymity, by promoting disinhibition, can lead to magnified aggression because the perpetrator may feel out of reach and immune to retribution; moreover the ability to hide behind fake screen names, or using someone else’s screen name, provides bullies with the opportunity to communicate things they would be reticent to say to another’s face, without see the target’s emotional reactions and realize that their comments have been carried too far or misinterpreted [ 1 , 5 , 7 ].

Some adolescents mistake cyberbullying as making fun of peers and suddenly realizing the severity of the situation after the effects have already snowballed.

The motivation behind cyberbullying, as reported by both cyberbullies and non-bullies, included a lack of confidence or the desire to feel better about themselves, a desire for control, finding it entertaining and retaliation [ 4 , 5 ].

Research reveals that individuals who are victims of cyberbullying are targets of traditional bullying as well, but in traditional accounts of bullying, the aggressive behaviors generally occur during school hours and cease once victims return home [ 2 ]. Cyberbullying, in contrast, is far more pervasive in the lives of those who are victimized, because they can be reached at any given time of the day, therefore the persistence of the bullying behaviors may result in even stronger negative outcomes than traditional bullying [ 2 , 5 ].

Moreover, cyberbullying has the same risk factors found in traditional bullying but involves others which should not be overlooked, such as the little control exerted over personal information, which may result from ignorance about the risks of sharing personal information on Internet, sharing passwords, communicating with strangers, openly displaying very personal information such as addresses and telephone numbers [ 8 ].

Rather than physically stronger, cyberbullies tend to be more technologically savvy and better able to access victims online, hide their electronic trails, and take advantage of the expanded bullying “repertoire”, which now includes identity theft, account hacking, infecting a victim’s computers, impersonation, or posting embarrassing content [ 1 ].

Relationships have also been discovered between cyberbullying and Internet addiction, the latter being understood as a continuous urge to connect to Internet which restricts forms of entertainment and social relationships, seriously affects an individual’s moods and irritability, induces violent, aggressive behavior that makes it impossible to disconnect and increases the user’s own social isolation and the destruction of their own closest relationships [ 8 ].

All adverse childhood experiences, typically defined as stressful or traumatic life events that occur during the first years of life, are pervasive and notable public health problems [ 9 ]. Cyberbullying should also be considered as a cause for new onset psychological symptoms, somatic symptoms of unclear etiology or a drop in academic performance [ 1 ]. Victims of cyberbullying have lower self-esteem, higher levels of depression, behavioral problems, substance abuse and experience significant life challenges [ 2 , 5 ]. Moreover, bullying victimization may trigger a sequence of events that results in suicidal behavior; Ferrara et al. identified in Italy 55 cases of suicide among children and young adults <18-year-old between January 2011 and December 2013 and 4 (7.3%) were bullying victims [ 10 ]. After several suicides were linked to cyberbullying, media attention to such cases gradually increased, becoming more intense in recent years [ 1 ].

In Italy, ISTAT data published in 2015 shows that, among the mobile and/or Internet users ages 11–17, the 5.9% report being bullied via SMS, email, chat or social networks; Police data report that 235 cases of cyberbullying have been reported in 2016 [ 11 , 12 ].

Recently Law no. 71/17, the so-called “anti-cyberbullying law”, officially entered into force after being approved by the Italian Parliament, intended to tackle online bullying of children after several high-profile cases in which victims have committed suicide [ 13 ]. The legislation provides a specific legal definition of cyberbullying for the first time in Italy, and requires all schools to educate pupils to use the Internet responsibly and to have a member of staff responsible for tackling the problem. It makes it illegal to use the Internet to offend, slander, threaten or steal the identity of a minor, and allows the victim or their parent to demand that websites hosting abusive content remove it within 48 h.

A major practical step is to increase awareness among adults; many adults of the current parental generation are not aware of the varied potential of mobile phones and the internet, to the same extent as young people [ 4 ]. Parents of seventh or eighth graders should be made aware of their child’s potential victimization and ways they can open and maintain communication to prevent or remedy such incidences [ 2 ]. Training should be provided to junior high school teachers, counselors, and school administrators for the detection and remediation of this social problem [ 2 , 4 ].

Pediatricians should be trained to play a major role in caring for and supporting the social and developmental well-being of children raised in variously conditions and in new types of problems [ 9 , 14 , 15 ]. A strong case can be made for introducing screening questions about children’s online lives into the general pediatric visit, including queries about excessive video game use and cyberbullying [ 1 ].

Guidelines can provide a useful framework for all concerned to reduce cyberbullying and its negative effects and are now becoming available in many countries to assist parents, young people and schools to understand the problem and take effective action.

The strategy is to provide information for youth, parents, and school personnel on what is cyberbullying and how to avoid being a victim, trough lessons, interactive computer game, forum, websites, tip sheets and other online resources; interesting programs to decreasing cyberbullying and cyber victimization exist, but much more research is needed to understand the long-term impact of these interventions [ 16 , 17 ].

Aboujaoude E, Savage MW, Starcevic V, Salame WO. Cyberbullying: review of an old problem gone viral. J Adolesc Health. 2015 Jul;57(1):10–8.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tokunaga. Following you home from school: a critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26:277–87.

Article   Google Scholar  

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth violence: technology and youth protecting your child from electronic aggression; 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ea-tipsheet-a.pdf . Accessed 11 September 2017.

Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tippett N. Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008 Apr;49(4):376–85.

Hamm MP, Newton AS, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Sundar P, et al. Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: a scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Aug;169(8):770–7.

Council on communications and media. Children, adolescents, and the media. Pediatrics. 2013 Nov;132(5):958–61.

Kowalski RM, Limber SP. Electronic bullying among middle school students. J Adolesc Health. 2007 Dec;41(6 Suppl 1):S22–30.

Casas JA, Del Rey R, Ortega-Ruiz R. Bullying and cyberbullying: convergent and divergent predictor variables. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29:580–7.

Ferrara P, Bernasconi S. From "classic" child abuse and neglect to the new era of maltreatment. Ital J Pediatr. 2017 Jan 28;43(1):16.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ferrara P, Ianniello F, Cutrona C, Quintarelli F, Vena F, Del Volgo V, et al. A focus on recent cases of suicides among Italian children and adolescents and a review of literature. Ital J Pediatr. 2014 Jul 15;40:69.

Il bullismo in Italia: comportamenti offensivi e violenti tra i giovanissimi. http://www.istat.it/it/files/2015/12/Bullismo.pdf?title=Bullismo++tra . Accessed 28 November 2017.

Commissariato di PS, Una vita da social. https://www.commissariatodips.it/uploads/media/Comunicato_stampa_Una_vita_da_social_4__edizione_2017.pdf . Accessed 28 November 2017.

Law n. 71/17 of 29/05/2017, GU n. 127 of 03/06/2017. Senato della Repubblica. http://www.senato.it/leg/17/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/43814.htm . Accessed 11 September 2017.

Ferrara P, Corsello G, Basile MC, Nigri L, Campanozzi A, Ehrich J, Pettoello-Mantovani M. The economic burden of child maltreatment in high income countries. J Ped. 2015;167(6):1457–9.

Ferrara P, Vena F, Caporale O, Del Volgo V, Liberatore P, Chiaretti A, Riccardi R. Children left unattended in parked vehicles: a focus on recent italian cases and a review of literature. It. J Ped. 2013;39(1):71.

Google Scholar  

Espelage DL, Hong JS. Cyberbullying prevention and intervention efforts: current knowledge and future directions. Can J Psychiatr. 2017 Jun;62(6):374–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743716684793 . Epub 2016 Dec 19

Del Rey R, Casas JA, Ortega R. Impact of the ConRed program on different cyberbulling roles. Aggress Behav. 2016 Mar-Apr;42(2):123–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21608 . Epub 2015 Sep 9

Download references

The authors have no support or funding to report.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Pediatrics, Catholic University Medical School, Rome, Italy

Pietro Ferrara & Francesca Ianniello

Service of Pediatrics, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy

Pietro Ferrara

General Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Diseases Unit, Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Alberto Villani

Institute of Pediatrics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

Giovanni Corsello

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

PF, FI, AV and GC conceived of the study and performed review of the literature. All Authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pietro Ferrara .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

This study was conducted in accordance with the regulatory standards of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ferrara, P., Ianniello, F., Villani, A. et al. Cyberbullying a modern form of bullying: let’s talk about this health and social problem. Ital J Pediatr 44 , 14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-018-0446-4

Download citation

Received : 27 September 2017

Accepted : 03 January 2018

Published : 17 January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-018-0446-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cyberbullying
• Victimization

Italian Journal of Pediatrics

ISSN: 1824-7288

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Digital Self-Harm: The Growing Problem You’ve Never Heard Of

Sameer and I first became aware of digital self-harm over a decade ago when we learned of the suicide of Hannah Smith. She was 14 years old when she ended her life after being mistreated online. The resulting investigation determined that the threats and hurtful comments directed toward her on the anonymous app Ask.fm were […]

Lessons Learned from Ten Generative AI Misuse Cases

Generative AI can contribute to a wide range of possible risks and harms that can affect the emotional and psychological well-being of others, their financial state of affairs, and even their physiological health and physical safety.  Both users and platforms (as well as government!) have a clear role to play, and I’ve explained their respective […]

Teens and AI: Virtual Girlfriend and Virtual Boyfriend Bots

A school counselor who works in a private school in California recently emailed me to ask for help as it relates to students and the misuse of specific AI bots. Her concerns, though, did not surround general purpose AI bots like Snapchat’s My AI or Microsoft’s CoPilot, but rather those that are specifically used as […]

When Your Mother is Your Cyberbully

Last winter when Sameer and I were writing the third edition of Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard (published last fall!), we spent quite a bit of time searching for unique examples of cyberbullying to include in the book. One of the more interesting cases I came across involved a 14-year-old girl from Beal City, Michigan. I […]

World Anti-Bullying Forum 2023!

It’s been over a month, but I still catch myself smiling when I think of the memories made at the 2023 World Anti-Bullying Forum (WABF). For those not familiar, WABF is an international forum and biennial conference focused on understanding and preventing bullying, cyberbullying, and other forms of interpersonal violence against children and young people. Delegates […]

Cyberbullying Continues to Rise among Youth in the United States

Here at the Cyberbullying Research Center, we routinely collect data from middle and high school students so that we can keep on top of what they are experiencing online. Over the last two decades, we have completed about twenty unique studies of teens and tweens in the United States involving more than 30,000 subjects. And […]

Social Media, Youth, and New Legislation: The Most Critical Components

In my last piece, I discussed how some legislation in various US states has been proposed without careful consideration of the contributing factors of internalized and externalized harm among youth. More specifically, I expressed concern that the complexities surrounding why youth struggle emotionally and psychologically demand more than simplistic, largely unenforceable solutions. We recognize that […]

State Laws, Social Media Bans, and Youth: What Are We Doing?

There has been a flurry of activity related to new legislation intending to make social media and gaming platforms safer and more accountable to upholding expected standards of trust, security, transparency, and privacy. These laws are being proposed because of continued concern of possible ill effects of popular platforms on the well-being of young people. […]

Takeaways from the Surgeon General’s Advisory on Social Media

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued an advisory earlier this year entitled “Social Media and Youth Mental Health.” In this public statement, Dr. Murthy summarizes the (limited and often methodologically shaky) research related to adolescents use of social media. His primary focus is on mental health, though other aspects of child wellbeing are also […]

Harassment in TikTok Comments: A Pilot Test of the TikTok Research API

In the Spring of 2023, TikTok released a Research API to academic researchers in the United States in an effort to “enhance transparency with the research community” and “stay accountable to how we moderate and recommend content.”1 According to their documentation, approved access allows for the retrieval of: • Public account data, such as user […]

Generative AI Risks and Harms – The Role of Platforms and Users

Generative AI is revolutionizing the way that content is created as user-friendly tools have made their way into the hands of the masses around the world. The possibilities seem endless, and their application may impact almost every sector of society. Since the beginning of time, though, every novel technology suffused with promise also provides an […]

Generative AI as a Vector for Harassment and Harm

As a social science researcher studying trust and safety on online platforms, it is critical to think through potential risks and negative impacts associated with the use of generative AI technologies. To be sure, its potential is incredible – and will benefit societal members in almost limitless ways. In this environment of giddy euphoria about […]

A Teen’s View of Social Media in 2023

I met Amelia when speaking at a high school in Central Florida, and was struck by her wide-angle view on the impact of social media in her life, and in the lives of her peers. I thought our readers could learn a lot from her insights, and so I asked her to provide this year’s […]

Take it Down: A New Tool to Combat the Unauthorized Sharing of Explicit Images of Minors

It has long been stressed that once you send an image to someone else, or post it online, you lose complete control over how that image is used and where it might end up. While this is still mostly true, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), with funding from Meta, has developed […]

School Administrators Charged with Child Exploitation After Investigating Sexting

Last spring, Brush High School (Brush, Colorado) assistant principal Bradley Bass was alerted to a student sexting issue at his school. He and secondary schools director Scott Hodgson looked into it. They talked to some students who were reportedly involved, and determined that intimate images had been shared consensually. At least one student voluntarily showed […]

What is Bullying?

Understand exactly what bullying is, and what it is not..

What is Cyberbullying?

Provides our well-cited definition of cyberbullying so you know how to spot it..

Cyberbullying Statistics

How much are kids being cyberbullied, and in what ways.

Cyberbullying Keynotes & Workshops

Cyberbullying keynotes and workshops to equip and empower educators are here..

Cyberbullying Student Presentations & Assemblies

Our compelling, relevant bullying and cyberbullying assemblies for students..

Cyberbullying Parent and Community Presentations

Sessions for parents and community members to help them keep kids safe, supported, and thriving online..

Cyberbullying Resources for Educators

Educators, here are numerous free pdf tip sheets, activities, and strategies to reduce tech misuse and promote its positive use..

Cyberbullying Resources for Parents

Parents, promote the positive use of technology with these free pdf resources..

Cyberbullying Resources for Youth

Students, here are resources to keep your online experience safe and fun..

Cyberbullying Stories

Read the experiences of those targeted online, in their own words..

Most Popular Social Media Apps

Description, history, user count, and age restrictions for any social media app you can think of..

Report Cyberbullying

Need cyberbullying help here's the contact info of every site, app, and gaming platform..

Bullying & Cyberbullying Laws

Need to know the bullying and cyberbullying laws in your state.

Bullying & Cyberbullying Policies In Your State

Know what to include in your school or organizational policy..

Cyberbullying Research by Country

An interactive map of cyberbullying research done in different countries of the world., organizations worked with view all.

2nd Annual Florida School Safety Summit

Keynote on student technology use and misuse, and how educators can promote civility and positive peer relationships offline and online.

2024 Maryland Center for School Safety Conference

Keynote on preventing technology misuse among K-12 students through school climate, resilience, and empathy initiatives

Dr. Hinduja's ability to hone in on the issues that our students are facing, and offer practical and straight-forward solutions to responsible technology use was impactful for our student body. This work is needed in all educational spaces and I am glad we were able to give this support to our students.

Adam Diaz, Lower and Middle School Counselor Landon School

Dr Hinduja's presentation for the GPS Parent Series was outstanding. It was informative, organized, very well-received. He is professional and very easy to work with - a highly recommended speaker!

Gilda Ross, Student and Community Projects Coordinator Glenbard Parent Series

With his clear, calm, and compassionate approach, Dr. Sameer Hinduja takes the fear out of cyberbullying and social media use. His family-oriented presentation is exactly what parents, caregivers, and educators need in today's fast-paced, digital world. The best discussion of the subject we have ever seen!

Charlene Margot, MA, Co-Founder and CEO The Parent Venture

I was interested in bringing Sameer Hinduja to our school after I heard a colleague rave about him. I spoke to my administration who supported bringing Dr. Hinduja to speak to our 5th graders, middle and upper school students and parents. He visited our campus for two days and spoke about social media and cyber bullying in a compassionate and inspirational manner. The students were engaged, laughing as he was able to connect with each age group, and they took away thought provoking questions about who they are and who they want to be. I cannot say enough positive comments about Sameer Hinduja. One 7th grade student commented, “he was the best speaker so far.” A parent stated, “I am SO grateful that you brought him, it is such an important and timely topic.” Dr. Hinduja combined real life scenarios, research, and humor effortlessly. He even presented his own Tik-Tok that he made. I highly recommend Dr. Hinduja to speak to audiences of all ages. He is not only a presenter that will capture your attention but a warm, sensitive, and compassionate human being who I hope to stay in touch with.

Lauri Kassewitz, LMHC, Middle School Counselor Miami Country Day School

- Apr 12, 2024, NBC News

- Mar 11, 2024, Tech Policy Press

- Mar 13, 2024, Inside Higher Ed

- Jan 1, 2024, CNN

- Nov 9, 2023, Berkman Klein Center

- Oct 30, 2023, The Daily Tar Heel

- Oct 2, 2023, The Washington Post

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can J Psychiatry
• v.62(6); 2017 Jun

Language: English | French

Cyberbullying Prevention and Intervention Efforts: Current Knowledge and Future Directions

Prévention de la cyberintimidation et initiatives d'intervention : connaissances actuelles et futures directions, dorothy l. espelage.

1 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Jun Sung Hong

2 School of Social Work, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

3 Department of Social Welfare, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea

Bullying is a serious public health concern that is associated with significant negative mental, social, and physical outcomes. Technological advances have increased adolescents’ use of social media, and online communication platforms have exposed adolescents to another mode of bullying— cyberbullying . Prevention and intervention materials, from websites and tip sheets to classroom curriculum, have been developed to help youth, parents, and teachers address cyberbullying. While youth and parents are willing to disclose their experiences with bullying to their health care providers, these disclosures need to be taken seriously and handled in a caring manner. Health care providers need to include questions about bullying on intake forms to encourage these disclosures. The aim of this article is to examine the current status of cyberbullying prevention and intervention. Research support for several school-based intervention programs is summarised. Recommendations for future research are provided.

L’intimidation est une préoccupation sérieuse de la santé publique qui est associée à des résultats négatifs significatifs sur le plan mental, social, et physique. Les progrès technologiques ont accru l’utilisation des médias sociaux par les adolescents et les plateformes de communication en ligne ont exposé les adolescents à un autre mode d’intimidation—la cyberintimidation . Du matériel de prévention et d’intervention, qu’il s’agisse de sites Web et de fiches-conseils ou de programmes d’étude en classe, a été mis au point pour aider les adolescents, les parents, et les enseignants à aborder la cyberintimidation. Les adolescents et les parents sont disposés à divulguer leurs expériences d’intimidation à leurs prestataires de soins de santé, mais ces divulgations doivent être prises au sérieux et traitées de manière bienveillante. Les prestataires de soins de santé doivent inclure des questions sur l’intimidation dans les formulaires d’admission pour susciter ces divulgations. Cet article vise à examiner l’état actuel de la prévention et de l’intervention en matière de cyberintimidation. Le soutien de la recherche pour plusieurs programmes d’intervention en milieu scolaire est résumé. Des recommandations sont offertes pour la recherche future.

Bullying is a serious public health issue, which has received a significant amount of research attention for several decades. Technological advances have increased adolescents’ use of social media and online communication platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. According to the Pew Research Center, 92% of children report going online daily, and 71% use more than one type of social media. 1 As a consequence, children are also increasingly exposed to another form of bullying, cyberbullying . Cyberbullying is defined as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phone, or other electronic devices.” 2 Using technology, youth can send or post humiliating or threatening messages or photos of their targets to a third party or to a public forum where many online participants visit. 2

Research findings on the prevalence of cyberbullying in Canada vary. 3 For example, according to a national study in Canada, which consisted of 1001 children ages 10 to 17 years, 14% of children reported being cyberbullied once or more in the past month. 4 Other studies 5 – 8 reported much higher rates of cyberbullying than the aforementioned study. Li’s study, 6 which includes a sample of 177 seventh-grade students in an urban area in Canada, found that over one-quarter of the students had been cyberbullied. Cenat and colleagues’ study, 5 which comprised a representative sample of 8194 students in Quebec, reported that 22.9% had been cyberbullied. However, Li’s survey 7 of Canadian students in grades 7 to 12 found that over 40% had reported being cyberbullied, and the Mishina et al. 8 study from a diverse sample of middle and high school students in a large urban center in Canada found that 49.5% reported being bullied online. These inconsistent rates are likely due to the use of different definitions, measures, timeframes, and response options across assessments, which require more empirical attention. 9

Targets of cyberbullying report greater depression, anxiety, risk behaviour, and suicidality than their peers who do not report these experiences. 10 – 15 For instance, a study consisting of a sample of students in 23 urban schools located in a western province in Canada found that youth who reported being cyberbullied also reported high levels of anxious, externalising, and depressed feelings/behaviour. Furthermore, face-to-face bullying victimisation is highly correlated with cyberbullying victimisation. 16 , 17 Recognising these outcomes, prevention and intervention materials, from websites and tip sheets to classroom curriculum, are being developed to curb cyberbullying. Regrettably, little information is available for health care providers who provide services for cyberbullied children and adolescents. This article reviews the current status of cyberbullying prevention and intervention efforts and provides suggestions for future research and implications for health care providers in Canada.

Evolution of Cyberbullying and Prevention Efforts

Research on cyberbullying is relatively recent in comparison to the 4 decades of research on face-to-face bullying. Technological innovations have changed people’s interactions with one another, and these innovations provide youth with hours of communicating with others without adult supervision, creating risk for bullying through new modes of communication. 18 As Kowalski et al. 19 argued, “A decade ago, technology had not advanced to the point where cyberbullying was even an issue…unfortunately, kids are keeping pace with the changes much more readily than adults” (pp. 41-42).

In addition to emerging research evidence of the frequency and serious consequences of bullying, cyberbullying in Canada and the United States gained nationwide media attention as a result of youth suicides involving cyberbullying. In 2006, 13-year-old Megan Meier, a cyberbullying victim in the United States, hanged herself due to constant bullying about her weight. In 2010, Phoebe Prince, a 15-year-old teenager in the United States, hanged herself after enduring several months of cyberbullying from her classmates. 20 Such cases galvanised the state of Massachusetts to propose the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act” in 2009, but it was not enacted. In 2004, antibullying measures were proposed in the US House of Representatives to be included in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, and all states currently have antibullying policies. Although the US Congress passed the Protecting Children in the 21st Century legislation in 2008, which also addresses cyberbullying, 21 not all states have updated their laws to include cyberbullying. At present, only 22 states in the United States have antibullying laws that include cyberbullying. 20

Canada’s recognition of cyberbullying as a social problem took a similar path. Suicides committed by 2 teens, Amanda Todd in 2012 and Rehtaeh Parsons in 2013, spurred Canada’s recognition of cyberbullying as a major public health concern. 22 In October 2012, 15-year-old Amanda Todd killed herself shortly after she was being bullied by her classmates. Prior to her suicide, she posted a video on YouTube, describing her torment. An anonymous perpetrator convinced her to lift her shirt for the webcam as he chatted with her. The perpetrator obtained a picture of her without a shirt on and threatened to expose the photo to her peers. Although she transferred to other schools several times, the perpetrator had contacted the students in her new schools and forwarded the image. 22 In the case of 17-year-old Rehtaeh Parsons, a photo of her severely intoxicated and being sexually violated by a male who gestured a thumbs-up to the camera was the main source of her torment and subsequent suicide. The image was sent to her peers, which led to derogatory comments online and in person. 22 These cases led to local legislative changes, including the Nova Scotia Cyber-Safety Act, which was enacted in May 2013. Since then, at least 9 provinces have new legislation or new laws that specifically address cyberbullying. 22 On December 12, 2014, the House Government Bill C-13 (aka, “Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act”) was passed by the Parliament of Canada—an amendment to the existing cyberbullying policy. 23 However, the Bill C-13 has been criticised for addressing cyberbullying in a cursory manner. Moreover, the bill is also problematic because the focus has been on increasing authorities to thoroughly investigate online activities, which has been argued as a violation of freedom of speech. 24

Preventing Cyberbullying through Informational Websites and Tip Sheets

Although scholars concur that cyberbullying prevention and intervention are necessary, there is no consensus on how to prevent or address cyberbullying. 25 However, one common strategy to prevent cyberbullying is to provide information for youth, parents, and school personnel on what constitutes cyberbullying and to avoid being a victim. 26 , 27 Youth, parents, and school administrators often learn about cyberbullying through websites (e.g., http://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/index.html ; http://www.cyberbullying.ca/ ; http://www.prevnet.ca/ ) and tip sheets. 28 Ahlfors 29 examined characteristics of 17 cyberbullying prevention and intervention websites to determine how online resources are being made available. Results indicated that 14 of the 17 websites were designed to inform parents, with 7 addressing young children (ages 6-10 years), 8 addressing tweens (ages 11-12 years), and 11 addressing adolescents (ages 13-18 years). Nine of the websites also address school officials and 6 provide information for law enforcement. 29 None of the websites target health care providers, who often work with and treat cyberbullied children and adolescents. Interestingly, 6 websites were designed around a commercial product, and only 10 included citations to published research.

These websites appear to target parents the most, which assumes that parents are aware of cyberbullying. Scholars have argued that parents have a critical role in any effective strategy against cyberbullying, 25 as their involvement has been found to be related to a reduction in bullying and victimisation. 30 Interestingly, unlike 1 study in the United States, which found that adolescents often do not turn to their parents when experiencing cyberbullying, 31 a study in Canada found that cyberbullied adolescents are more likely to confide in their parents than in school officials. 32 Nevertheless, it is imperative that parents are prepared to respond to cyberbullying situations. Moreover, online resources must be available for youth who are looking to manage their online experiences without parental intervention. Also, parents, school staff, health care providers, and youth need to understand that online resources might be tied to the sale of a commercial product that is not grounded in research.

A number of tips for addressing cyberbullying for victims, parents, and/or educators have been proposed by several scholars. 33 – 35 Such tips range from “do not read messages by cyberbullies” (victims 28 ) and providing parents with education (parents 33 ) to clearly defining and requiring compliance with the Internet policy for students, providing extensive faculty training on cyberbullying, and adopting a whole-school prevention efforts. 27 , 34 Ortega-Ruiz et al. 36 further argued that effective programs require the following strategies: 1) proactive policies, procedures, and practices; 2) raising school staff’s and youths’ individual awareness and online social competence; 3) promoting protective school environment; and 4) school-family-community partnerships to promote cooperation between school staff, families, and local organisations.

Students’ and Educators’ Awareness, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Cyberbullying

Many schools hold school assemblies or use software programs to increase students’ knowledge about cyberbullying and its effects on the targets. Only a few studies have evaluated these approaches. In their pilot study in Taiwan, Lee and colleagues explored the effectiveness of WebQuest, experiential learning activities focus on students' knowledge and attitudes toward cyberbullying and involves completing 4 tasks in collaborative student groups. 37 Lee and colleagues 37 found that cyberbullying knowledge increased and intentions to cyberbullying decreased in the WebQuest condition compared to the control condition. Roberto and colleagues 38 examined the effectiveness of the Arizona Attorney General’s Social Networking Safety Promotion and Cyberbullying Prevention presentation, which was designed to change students’ perceptions and attitudes toward cyberbullying. This presentation was 45 minutes long and covered Internet safety and cyberbullying prevention. Also, prior to the presentation, the speaker gathered information from the Facebook accounts of students in the school and sent them friend requests. Results indicated that students in the experimental condition were more likely to engage in Internet safety precautions (e.g., keep accounts private, no personal information on sites, not friending people they do not know) than students in the control condition. However, both studies were limited in scope with short follow-up. Thus, much more research is needed to understand the long-term impact of these programs.

Other research has focused on understanding educators’ awareness and perceptions of cyberbullying. 33 , 39 Cassidy and colleagues 39 examined educators’ experiences with cyberbullying in Alberta schools, their knowledge of social networking sites, the priority they place on preventing cyberbullying, and approaches they take. The authors found that educators perceived cyberbullying as a cause for concern but were not familiar with how and where students engaged in cyberbullying. Educators also reported that no policies or programs have been specifically implemented in their schools. Another study, 40 which examined preservice teachers’ perceptions about cyberbullying in Canada, showed that although a majority of the teachers understood that cyberbullying can seriously affect children, most did not think it was a serious problem in their schools.

Role of Health Care Providers in Preventing Cyberbullying

In the past few years, primary care health care providers have been urged to take a more active role in preventing the long-term health consequences associated with youth bullying. 15 , 41 – 43 Research suggests that youth and parents are willing to disclose to their physician concerns with bullying if the physician handles the disclosure in a caring manner. 43 , 44 However, most youth would prefer disclosing their bullying experiences on an intake form prior to seeing the physician, and some would prefer that their parents are not present when they discuss their experiences. 43 Other scholars argue that health care providers need to ask youth directly about bullying involvement (being bullied by others and bullying others) at school and online, 42 including questions of duration, location, forms of cyberbullying, and how these cyberbullying experiences have affected the youth.

Efficacy of School-Based Cyberbullying Interventions

Research on cyberbullying prevention and intervention approaches is an emerging scholarship in many countries, including Canada. There have been 1 meta-analysis and 2 systematic reviews of cyberbullying programs, where the program specifically targeted cyberbullying and assessed cyberbullying as outcomes. In a systematic review, Mishna and colleagues 45 examined the impact of 3 programs on “cyberabuse” (2 in the United States, 1 in Canada). First, the US-developed I-SAFE curriculum 46 includes 5 lessons (60 minutes) on Internet safety, cybercommunity citizenship, cybersecurity, personal safety, intellectual property, and law enforcement online. Lessons were provided by teachers during class time, and almost all activities were offline and targeted students in grades 5 to 8. Second, the Canadian program, The Missing Program, an interactive computer game designed to teach youth about Internet safety, was reviewed. 47 When playing the game, youth assume the role of a police officer and have to solve a series of puzzles with the goal of finding a missing teenager who had been targeted by a predator. Youth learn that they cannot trust everyone online, and the program focuses on chat room conversations, emails with someone on the Internet, and personal webpage design. The third program reviewed by Mishna and colleagues 45 was called Help-Assert Yourself-Humor-Avoid-Self-Talk-Own It. 48 Research evidence found that the programs increased Internet safety knowledge but did not affect risky online behaviour. Thus, additional research needs to be conducted on how programs can affect youths’ behaviour.

Van Cleemput and colleagues 49 identified 15 programs in their systematic review and included 6 programs (8 articles) in their meta-analysis. Although the overall effects of cyberbullying reduction were modest (Hedges’s g = .13), they were significant, with some programs yielding greater reductions. These programs include a wide range of strategies, including social skills training, use of peer educators, and information for teachers, staff, and families. One of the most rigorously evaluated programs is Media Heroes (Medienhelden), a school-based, psychoeducational program in Germany that attempts to raise students’ awareness about risks associated with technology use, to increase empathy and social responsibility, and to teach strategies to defend oneself and others from cyberbullying. The program targets middle school and high school students and consists of ten 90-minute sessions delivered weekly (although there is a shorter 1-day version with reduced content, over four 90-minute sessions). Informed by the theory of planned behaviour, the program covers topics such as defining cyberbullying, a discussion of its negative impact, Internet safety tips, and opportunities to react appropriately using hypothetical scenarios. Two randomised controlled studies found that the program significantly reduced cyberbullying. 50 , 51 Van Cleemput and colleagues’ meta-analysis 49 indicated moderate reductions in cyberbullying perpetration (Hedges’s g = .19).

Help-Assert Yourself-Humor-Avoid-Self-Talk-Own It is a US curriculum (ages 10-12 years) with 5 lessons to reduce bullying through increasing social skills. 48 Results yielded moderate levels of reductions in cyberbullying victimisation (Hedges’s g = .32). 48

ConRed is a school-based program developed and evaluated in Spain. 36 Based on the theory of normative behaviour where attitudes and behaviour are influenced by perceptions of social norms, the program consists of 8 student lessons delivered over 14 weeks (ages 11-19 years), 2 sessions for teachers and 1 session for families. Three units cover the following topics using virtual scenarios: 1) Internet/social networks with a focus on privacy and control over accounts, 2) improving technical skills and prosocial online behaviour, and 3) Internet addiction and cyberbullying. Results indicated modest reductions in cyberbullying (Hedges’s g = .15, .06). 36 , 52 More recently, Del Rey and colleagues 53 reanalysed their data and found significant intervention effects on cyberbullying victimisation for cybervictims (Cohen’s d = .56) and cyberbullying perpetration for cyberbullies (Cohen’s d = .22).

Noncadiamointrappola is a program developed in Italy that focuses on peer educators to decrease cyberbullying (ages 14-19 years). 54 Four offline and 4 online peer educators are trained on bullying prevention concepts and then participate in a number of school-wide events (e.g., raising awareness, making a short film, meeting with school administrators, developing a guide on email and cell phone safety). Results indicated significant reductions in cyberbullying (Hedges’s g = .15, .06). 55

The KiVa program, developed in Finland, is a universal school-based program that addresses cyberbullying at school by working with teachers, parents, families, community leaders, and students. Teacher training, student lessons, and virtual learning environments are all critical components of this multicomponent program. 56 Teachers use a manual for classroom instruction, which is supplemented by an antibullying computer game for primary school children and an Internet forum for secondary school students. Results yielded moderate levels of reductions in cyberbullying victimisation (Hedges’s g = .23). 57

Surf-fair 58 is a German-based curriculum for 11- to 12-year-olds that can be delivered in one 90-minute session (definition of cyberbullying, diary exercise, coping strategies) or two 90-minute sessions (online safety, German laws on cyberbullying, and a film). Results yielded substantial reductions in cyberbullying victimisation (Hedges’s g = .49), but the program was less effective in reducing perpetration (Hedges’s g = .08).

Overall, this meta-analysis indicated that programs designed specifically for cyberbullying and those that target multiple forms of bullying showed promise in reducing this type of behaviour. From these studies, it appears critical to involve students, teachers, school staff, and families in the prevention of cyberbullying. Since this meta-analysis, there have been additional studies pointing to other promising school-based programs (Cyber Friendly School Program). 59 While much more research needs to be conducted on prevention programs, critical components appear to be Internet safety, responsible use of technology, parental monitoring, robust school policies around cyberbullying, and school-home partnerships.

Summary and Future Directions

Prevention programs are only now being developed and evaluated to address cyberbullying and cybersafety. Websites, tip sheets, and other online resources might be where parents are receiving information about how to best protect their children. However, it appears that these online resources are often promoted by organisations that are selling products and rarely grounded in research. There is a risk that this information could be harmful if not supported by scholarship. Parents, teachers, school administrators, and health care providers should be cautious when reviewing information on these sites and should focus on online resources that are provided by government agencies and advocacy groups that use research to guide their recommendations.

Also, with the exception of ConRed, 36 the other programs described here and reviewed in the meta-analysis by Van Cleemput and colleagues 49 were programs that targeted multiple forms of bullying. Thus, many efficacious bullying prevention and intervention programs or approaches could be extended to include contents on cyberbullying and measure these as outcomes. 60 , 61 For example, reductions in cyberbullying perpetration were noted in a recent randomised clinical trial of a middle school social-emotional learning program in 36 schools in the United States. 62 While cyberbullying was addressed in the curriculum, the majority of the program focused on promoting empathy, perspective taking, communication skills, problem solving, friendship skills, and so forth. Scholars who are evaluating antibullying programs should at the very least add cyberbullying outcome measures and include lessons on cybersafety and cyberbullying. However, schools need to be supported to implement these programs through stronger legislation that addresses cyberbullying, and health care providers need to be informed of the negative outcomes associated with cyberbullying and how to effectively work with cyberbullying victims.

Finally, much more guidance is needed for health care providers to prevent the long-term health consequences of youth bullying. While youth and parents are willing to disclose their experiences with bullying to their health care providers, their disclosures need to be taken seriously and handled in a caring manner. Health care providers need to include questions about bullying on intake forms to encourage these disclosures. Questions should include whether youth are bullying others or are being bullied by others, how long it has been happening, where it is happening (e.g., school, online, in sport), and how these experiences have affected the youth’s mental, physical, and social health. In relation to cyberbullying, health care providers should talk to parents about setting appropriate limits on screen time, monitoring their children’s use of the technology, talking to their children about Internet safety and privacy, and identifying why their children are not talking to them about their online experiences. In short, more research has to be conducted on the various ways in which schools, communities, and health care providers are addressing cyberbullying to determine how best to intervene.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access Only $1 for 4 weeks

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, ft professional, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• FT App on Android & iOS
• FirstFT: the day's biggest stories
• 20+ curated newsletters
• Follow topics & set alerts with myFT
• FT Videos & Podcasts
• 20 monthly gift articles to share
• Lex: FT's flagship investment column
• 15+ Premium newsletters by leading experts
• FT Digital Edition: our digitised print edition
• Weekday Print Edition
• Videos & Podcasts
• Premium newsletters
• 10 additional gift articles per month
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Everything in Premium Digital

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• 10 monthly gift articles to share
• Everything in Print
• Make and share highlights
• FT Workspace
• Markets data widget
• Subscription Manager
• Workflow integrations
• Occasional readers go free
• Volume discount

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

Longitudinal and Reciprocal Effects in the Association Between School Bullying and Homicidal Ideation During Early Adolescence

• Empirical Research
• Published: 15 May 2024

Cite this article

• Fan Wang 1   na1 ,
• Dongxue Zhu 1   na1 ,
• Yuheng He 1 ,
• Mengyuan Yuan 1 ,
• Yonghan Li 1 ,
• Faliang Xie 1 ,
• Xue Wen 1 ,
• Yingying Tong 1 ,
• Xueying Zhang 2 ,
• Puyu Su   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0946-2805 1 , 3 , 4 &
• Gengfu Wang 1 , 3 , 4  

Several cross-sectional studies indicated a positive association between school bullying and homicidal ideation during early adolescence. However, few longitudinal studies investigated this association. This study examined whether a bi-directional relationship exists within the longitudinal association between bullying victimization or bullying perpetration and homicidal ideation among early adolescents using a Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model. A total of 1611 early adolescents (39.5% girls; M age  = 12.50 years, SD  = 0.50) were recruited from the Chinese Early Adolescents Cohort study. Data on bullying victimization, bullying perpetration, and homicidal ideation collected during three time points (September 2019, September 2020, and September 2021) were used. Bullying victimization showed a significant positive association with homicidal ideation at the between-person level. Bullying victimization and bullying perpetration had a bi-directional relationship with homicidal ideation at the within-person level. Additionally, this study considered the impact of biological sex-based differences and bullying types on adolescents' homicidal ideation. Based on these findings, school bullying might exhibit unique reciprocal associations with homicidal ideation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data Sharing and Declaration

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Arango, A., Clark, M., & King, C. A. (2022). Predicting the severity of peer victimization and bullying perpetration among youth with interpersonal problems: A 6-month prospective study. Journal of Adolescence , 94 (1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12005 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bai, Y., Liu, X., Zhang, B., Fu, M., Huang, N., Hu, Q., & Guo, J. (2022). Associations of youth mental health, parental psychological distress, and family relationships during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. BMC Psychiatry , 22 (1), 275 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-03938-8 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall

Bhatia, R. (2023). The impact of bullying in childhood and adolescence. Current Opinion Psychiatry , 36 (6), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1097/yco.0000000000000900 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bjärehed, M., Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., & Gini, G. (2021). Moral disengagement and verbal bullying in early adolescence: A three-year longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology , 84 , 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.08.006 .

Borum, R., Cornell, D. G., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. R. (2010). What can be done about school shootings?: A review of the evidence. Educational Researcher , 39 (1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357620 .

Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Johnson, S. L. (2015). Overlapping verbal, relational, physical, and electronic forms of bullying in adolescence: influence of school context. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology , 44 (3), 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.893516 .

Carbone, J. T., Holzer, K. J., Vaughn, M. G., & DeLisi, M. (2020). Homicidal ideation and forensic psychopathology: Evidence from the 2016 nationwide emergency department sample (NEDS). Journal of Forensic Sciences , 65 (1), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14156 .

Caves, S. J., Tong, G., Easter, M., Swanson, J., & Copeland, W. (2023). Violent experiences and patterns of firearm ownership from childhood to young adulthood. JAMA Network Open , 6 (10), e2336907 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36907 .

Chan, H. C., & Wong, D. S. W. (2015). Traditional school bullying and cyberbullying in Chinese societies: Prevalence and a review of the whole-school intervention approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 23 , 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.010 .

Chan, S. K. W., Li, O., Hui, C., Chang, W., Lee, E., & Chen, E. J. S. P., epidemiology, p. (2019). The effect of media reporting of a homicide committed by a patient with schizophrenia on the public stigma and knowledge of psychosis among the general population of Hong Kong. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , 54 (1), 43–50.

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 14 (3), 464–504.

China National Bureau of Statistics (2023). The 2022 Statistical Monitoring Report on China’s Children’s Development Program (2021-2030) . Retrieved 2.15 from https://www.stats.gov.cn/xxgk/sjfb/zxfb2020/202312/t20231231_1946120.html .

Coyle, S., Cipra, A., & Rueger, S. Y. (2021). Bullying types and roles in early adolescence: Latent classes of perpetrators and victims. Journal of School Psychology , 89 , 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.09.003 .

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological bulletin , 115 (1), 74.

De, M. B., Fekkes, M., Miers, A. C., van den Akker, A. L., Scholte, R. H. J., & Overbeek, G. (2023). What works in preventing emerging social anxiety: Exposure, cognitive restructuring, or a combination? Journal of Child and Family Studies , 32 (2), 498–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-023-02536-w .

DeLisi, M., Tahja, K., Drury, A. J., Caropreso, D., Elbert, M., & Heinrichs, T. (2017). The criminology of homicidal ideation: Associations with criminal careers and psychopathology among federal correctional clients. American Journal of Criminal Justice , 42 (3), 554–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9371-5 .

Demol, K., Verschueren, K., Ten Bokkel, I. M., van Gils, F. E., & Colpin, H. (2022). Trajectory classes of relational and physical bullying victimization: Links with peer and teacher-student relationships and social-emotional outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 51 (7), 1354–1373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01544-7 .

Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology , 39 (2), 349.

Duke, N. N., Pettingell, S. L., McMorris, B. J., & Borowsky, I. W. (2010). Adolescent violence perpetration: Associations with multiple types of adverse childhood experiences. Pediatrics , 125 (4), e778–e786. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0597 .

Dukes, R. L., Stein, J. A., & Zane, J. I. (2010). Gender differences in the relative impact of physical and relational bullying on adolescent injury and weapon carrying. Journal of School Psychology , 48 (6), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.08.001 .

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. The developmental social psychology of gender , 12 (174), 9781410605245–9781410605212.

Google Scholar  

Educator, R. (2020). Daniel Goleman’s emotional intelligence theory explained. Retrieved June , 6 , 2022

Espejo-Siles, R., Zych, I., & Llorent, V. J. (2020). Empathy, social and emotional competencies, bullying perpetration and victimization as longitudinal predictors of somatic symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Affective Disorders , 271 , 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.071 .

Esposito, C., Bacchini, D., & Affuso, G. (2019). Adolescent non-suicidal self-injury and its relationships with school bullying and peer rejection. Psychiatry Research , 274 , 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.02.018 .

Farrell, A. H., & Vaillancourt, T. (2021). The impact of childhood bullying trajectories on young adulthood antisocial trajectories. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 50 (9), 1782–1796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01456-6 .

Frizzo, M. N., Bisol, L. W., & Lara, D. R. (2013). Bullying victimization is associated with dysfunctional emotional traits and affective temperaments. Journal of Affective Disorders , 148 (1), 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.046 .

Galán, C. A., Stokes, L. R., Szoko, N., Abebe, K. Z., & Culyba, A. J. J. J. N. O. (2021). Exploration of experiences and perpetration of identity-based bullying among adolescents by race/ethnicity and other marginalized identities. JAMA Network Open , 4 (7), e2116364–e2116364.

Garandeau, C. F., & Lansu, T. A. M. (2019). Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators? Aggressive Behaviors , 45 (3), 348–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21824 .

Guo, S. (2022). Cyberbullying and delinquency in adolescence: The potential mediating effects of social attachment and delinquent peer association. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 37 (19-20), Np18837–np18864. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211040828 .

Guy, A., Lee, K., & Wolke, D. (2017). Differences in the early stages of social information processing for adolescents involved in bullying. Aggressive Behaviors , 43 (6), 578–587. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21716 .

Haddad, D. N., & Kaufman, E. J. (2023). Rising rates of homicide of children and adolescents: Preventable and unacceptable. JAMA Pediatrics , 177 (2), 117–119. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4946 .

Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods , 20 (1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889 .

Harter, S., Low, S. M., & Whitesell, N. R. (2003). What Have We Learned from Columbine : The impact of the self-system on suicidal and violent ideation among adolescents. Journal of School Violence , 2 (3), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v02n03_02 .

He, Y., Chen, S. S., Xie, G. D., Chen, L. R., Zhang, T. T., Yuan, M. Y., & Su, P. Y. (2022). Bidirectional associations among school bullying, depressive symptoms and sleep problems in adolescents: A cross-lagged longitudinal approach. Journal of Affective Disorders , 298 (Pt A), 590–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.11.038 .

Huang, H., Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2013). Understanding factors associated with bullying and peer victimization in Chinese schools within ecological contexts. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 22 (7), 881–892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9647-4 .

Lawrence, T. I., Hong, J. S., Sopchak, K. S., & Voisin, D. R. (2023). The association between exposure to community violence and somatic symptoms through bullying victimization among African American adolescents in Chicago: A developmental trauma approach. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 79 (5), 1280–1292. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23475 .

Lee, J. M., Kim, J., Hong, J. S., & Marsack-Topolewski, C. N. (2021). From bully victimization to aggressive behavior: Applying the problem behavior theory, theory of stress and coping, and general strain theory to explore potential pathways. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36 (21-22), 10314–10337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519884679 .

Li, C., Wang, P., Martin-Moratinos, M., Bella-Fernández, M., & Blasco-Fontecilla, H. (2022). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying in the digital age and its associated mental health problems in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-022-02128-x .

Li, Y., Kang, Y., Zhu, L., Yuan, M., Li, Y., Xu, B., & Su, P. (2023). Longitudinal correlates of bullying victimization among Chinese early adolescents: A cross-lagged panel network analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders , 339 , 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.07.006 .

Li, Y., Wang, M., Wang, C., & Shi, J. (2010). Individualism, collectivism, and Chinese adolescents’ aggression: intracultural variations. Aggressive Behaviors , 36 (3), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20341 .

Liang, Y., Chen, J., Xiong, Y., Wang, Q., & Ren, P. (2023). Profiles and transitions of non-suicidal self-injury and depressive symptoms among adolescent boys and girls: Predictive role of bullying victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 52 (8), 1705–1720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01779-6 .

Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 83 (404), 1198–1202.

Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2019). Statistical analysis with missing data (Vol. 793). John Wiley & Sons

Lindsay, S., & McPherson, A. C. (2012). Experiences of social exclusion and bullying at school among children and youth with cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation , 34 (2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.587086 .

Luo, X., Zheng, R., Xiao, P., Xie, X., Liu, Q., Zhu, K., & Song, R. (2022). Relationship between school bullying and mental health status of adolescent students in China: A nationwide cross-sectional study. Asian Journal of Psychiatry , 70 , 103043 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2022.103043 .

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. J. S. E. M. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling , 11 (3), 320–341.

McEachern, A. D., & Snyder, J. (2012). Gender differences in predicting antisocial behaviors: Developmental consequences of physical and relational aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 40 (4), 501–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9589-0 .

Meldrum, R. C., Trucco, E. M., Cope, L. M., Zucker, R. A., & Heitzeg, M. M. (2018). Brain activity, low self-control, and delinquency: An fMRI study of at-risk adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice , 56 , 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.07.007 .

Metts, A., Yarrington, J., Enders, C., Hammen, C., Mineka, S., Zinbarg, R., & Craske, M. G. (2021). Reciprocal effects of neuroticism and life stress in adolescence. Journal of Affective Disorders , 281 , 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.016 .

Miller, C. F., Kochel, K. P., Wheeler, L. A., Updegraff, K. A., Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2017). The efficacy of a relationship building intervention in 5th grade. Journal of School Psychology , 61 , 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.01.002 .

Mulder, J. D., & Hamaker, E. L. (2021). Three Extensions of the Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 28(4), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1784738 .

Nickerson, A. B., Fredrick, S. S., Allen, K. P., & Jenkins, L. N. (2019). Social emotional learning (SEL) practices in schools: Effects on perceptions of bullying victimization. Journal of School Psychology , 73 , 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.03.002 .

Oexle, N., Ribeiro, W., Fisher, H. L., Gronholm, P. C., Laurens, K. R., Pan, P., & Evans-Lacko, S. (2020). Childhood bullying victimization, self-labelling, and help-seeking for mental health problems. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , 55 (1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01743-5 .

Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 9 , 751–780. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516 .

Park, I., & Cho, S. (2021). Influences of target congruence and lifestyles on victimization trajectories: An Autoregressive Latent Trajectory Modeling approach to overlap between bullying and victimization. Journal of Adolescence , 92 , 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.08.005 .

Pettorruso, M., Valle, S., Cavic, E., Martinotti, G., di Giannantonio, M., & Grant, J. E. (2020). Problematic Internet use (PIU), personality profiles and emotion dysregulation in a cohort of young adults: trajectories from risky behaviors to addiction. Psychiatry Research , 289 , 113036 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113036 .

Reynolds, M. D., Tarter, R., Kirisci, L., Kirillova, G., Brown, S., Clark, D. B., & Gavaler, J. (2007). Testosterone levels and sexual maturation predict substance use disorders in adolescent boys: a prospective study. Biological Psychiatry , 61 (11), 1223–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.07.008 .

Rodgers, R. F., Slater, A., Gordon, C. S., McLean, S. A., Jarman, H. K., & Paxton, S. J. (2020). A biopsychosocial model of social media use and body image concerns, disordered eating, and muscle-building behaviors among adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Youth Adolescence , 49 (2), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01190-0 .

Rouquette, A., Pingault, J. B., Fried, E. I., Orri, M., Falissard, B., Kossakowski, J. J., & Borsboom, D. (2018). Emotional and behavioral symptom network structure in elementary school girls and association with anxiety disorders and depression in adolescence and early adulthood: A network analysis. JAMA Psychiatry , 75 (11), 1173–1181. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.2119 .

Roza, T. H., Yano, V. A. N., Roza, S. A., Santo, J. B., & Cunha, J. M. D. (2021). Bullying victimization and friendship as influences on sleep difficulty among Brazilian adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 182 (5), 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2021.1905597 .

Sagar, R., & Sen, M. S. (2021). School bullying: Cause or consequence? Indian Journal of Pediatrics , 88 (10), 955–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-021-03930-2 .

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. J. P. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika , 66 (4), 507–514.

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of Bullying: A Comparison of Terms Used, and Age and Gender Differences, in a Fourteen–Country International Comparison. Child Development , 73 , 1119–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00461 .

Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Duriez, B., & Niemiec, C. P. (2008). The intervening role of relational aggression between psychological control and friendship quality. Social Development , 17 (3), 661–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00454.x .

Somerville, L. H., Jones, R. M., Ruberry, E. J., Dyke, J. P., Glover, G., & Casey, B. J. (2013). The medial prefrontal cortex and the emergence of self-conscious emotion in adolescence. Psychological Science , 24 (8), 1554–1562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613475633 .

Sommer, F., Leuschner, V., & Scheithauer, H. J. I. J. O. D. S. (2014). Bullying, romantic rejection, and conflicts with teachers: The crucial role of social dynamics in the development of school shootings–a systematic review. International Journal of Developmental , 8 (1-2), 3–24.

Su, P. Y., Han, A. Z., Wang, G.-F., Wang, L.-H., Zhang, G.-B., Xu, N., & Xu, G. (2018). Is childhood maltreatment associated with murderous ideation and behaviors in adolescents in China? Psychiatry Research , 270 , 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.10.024 .

Su, P. Y., Wang, G. F., He, H., Han, A. Z., Zhang, G. B., & Xu, N. (2019). Is involvement in school bullying associated with increased risk of murderous ideation and behaviours among adolescent students in China? BMC Psychiatry , 19 (1), 121 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2108-5 .

Sun, C. F., Mansuri, Z., Trivedi, C., Vadukapuram, R., & Reddy, A. (2022). Homicidal ideation and psychiatric comorbidities in the inpatient adolescents aged 12–17. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 13 , 933524 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.933524 .

Tao, T. (2012). Analysis of rural women’s expectation on children and gender preference. Population Economics , 2 , 25–32.

Ten Bokkel, I. M., Verschueren, K., Demol, K., van Gils, F. E., & Colpin, H. (2021). Reciprocal links between teacher-student relationships and peer victimization: A three-wave longitudinal study in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 50 (11), 2166–2180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01490-4 .

Van, K. G. A., & Côté, S. (2022). The social effects of emotions. Annual Review of Psychology , 73 , 629–658. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-010855 .

Varela, J. J., Guzmán, J., Alfaro, J., & Reyes, F. (2019). Bullying, cyberbullying, student life satisfaction and the community of Chilean adolescents. Applied Research in Quality of Life , 14 (3), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9610-7 .

Vaughn, M. G., Carbone, J., DeLisi, M., & Holzer, K. J. (2020). Homicidal ideation among children and adolescents: Evidence from the 2012–2016 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. The Journal of Pediatrics , 219 , 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.12.045 .

Walters, G. D. (2021). School-age bullying victimization and perpetration: A meta-analysis of prospective studies and research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 22 (5), 1129–1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020906513 .

Walters, G. D., & Espelage, D. L. (2018). From victim to victimizer: Hostility, anger, and depression as mediators of the bullying victimization–bullying perpetration association. Journal of School Psychology , 68 , 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.12.003 .

Wang, G. F., Han, A. Z., Zhang, G. B., Xu, N., Xie, G. D., Chen, L. R., Yuan, M. Y., & Su, P. Y. (2020). Sensitive periods for the effect of bullying victimization on suicidal behaviors among university students in China: The roles of timing and chronicity. Journal of Affective Disorders , 268 , 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.02.049 .

Wang, G., Yuan, M., Chang, J., Li, Y., Blum, R., & Su, P. (2023). Vitamin D and depressive symptoms in an early adolescent cohort. Psychological Medicine , 53 (12), 5852–5860. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291722003117 .

Yang, M., Guo, H., Chu, M., Leng, C., Qu, C., Tian, K., Li, X. (2022). Sex differences in traditional school bullying perpetration and victimization among adolescents: A chain-mediating effect. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 (15). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159525

Yen, C. F., Huang, M. F., Kim, Y. S., Wang, P. W., Tang, T. C., Yeh, Y. C., & Yang, P. (2013). Association between types of involvement in school bullying and different dimensions of anxiety symptoms and the moderating effects of age and gender in Taiwanese adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect , 37 (4), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.01.004 .

Yuan, M. Y., Li, Y. H., Chang, J. J., Zhang, T. T., Wang, G. F., & Su, P. Y. (2022). Exploring the correlates of homicidal ideation in Chinese early adolescents: A network analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders , 314 , 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.07.032 .

Yuan, M., Li, Y., Chang, J., Zhang, X., Wang, S., Cao, L., Li, Y., Wang, G., & Su, P. (2023). Vitamin D and suicidality: a Chinese early adolescent cohort and Mendelian randomization study. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , 32 , e52 https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796023000665 .

Zhang, G. B., Wang, G. F., Han, A. Z., Xu, N., Xie, G. D., Chen, L. R., & Su, P. Y. (2019). Association between different stages of precollege school bullying and murder-related psychological behaviors among college students in Anhui Province, China. Psychiatry Reseach , 282 , 112593 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112593 .

Zhu, Y., Chan, K. L., & Chen, J. (2018). Bullying victimization among Chinese middle school students: The role of family violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 33 (12), 1958–1977. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515621082 .

Ziv, Y., Leibovich, I., & Shechtman, Z. (2013). Bullying and victimization in early adolescence: Relations to social information processing patterns. Aggressive Behaviors , 39 (6), 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21494 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to all the participants for participating in this study and to the teachers for their great support with data collection.

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers: 82173539, 82204071, and 81874268).

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Fan Wang, Dongxue Zhu

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health, School of Public Health, Anhui Medical University, No.81 Meishan Road, Hefei, 230032, Anhui, China

Fan Wang, Dongxue Zhu, Yuheng He, Mengyuan Yuan, Yonghan Li, Faliang Xie, Xue Wen, Yingying Tong, Puyu Su & Gengfu Wang

Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, 10029, USA

Xueying Zhang

Key Laboratory of Population Health Across Life Cycle (Anhui Medical University), Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, No 81 Meishan Road, Hefei, 230032, Anhui, China

Puyu Su & Gengfu Wang

Anhui Provincial Key Laboratory of Population Health and Aristogenics, No 81 Meishan Road, Hefei, 230032, Anhui, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

F.W. conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, and drafted the manuscript; D.X.Z. participated in the design and interpretation of the data; Y.H.H. participated in the design and coordination of the study and performed the measurement; M.Y.Y. participated in the design of the study and performed the statistical analysis; Y.H.L. conceived of the study, and participated in its design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript; F.L.X. participated in the design and revised the manuscript; X.W. participated in the design; Y.Y.T. participated in the data collection; X.Y.Z. helped to revise the manuscript; P.Y.S. participated in the design of the study and helped to revise the manuscript; G.F.W. conceived of the study, designed the study and methods, coordinated the data collection, and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Puyu Su or Gengfu Wang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work, the authors did not use any generative AI or AI-assisted technologies.

Ethical approval

The ethics approval was obtained from the Biomedical Ethics Committee of Anhui Medical University (No. 20180083).

Informed consent

All participants and their parents gave their informed consent to participate.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wang, F., Zhu, D., He, Y. et al. Longitudinal and Reciprocal Effects in the Association Between School Bullying and Homicidal Ideation During Early Adolescence. J. Youth Adolescence (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-02001-x

Download citation

Received : 24 December 2023

Accepted : 27 April 2024

Published : 15 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-02001-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bullying victimization
• Bullying perpetration
• Homicidal ideation
• Early adolescents
• Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Mode
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Cyberbullying among adolescents and children: a comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures.

• 1 School of Political Science and Public Administration, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
• 2 School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
• 3 College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom

Background: Cyberbullying is well-recognized as a severe public health issue which affects both adolescents and children. Most extant studies have focused on national and regional effects of cyberbullying, with few examining the global perspective of cyberbullying. This systematic review comprehensively examines the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures taken worldwide to fight cyberbullying among adolescents and children.

Methods: A systematic review of available literature was completed following PRISMA guidelines using the search themes “cyberbullying” and “adolescent or children”; the time frame was from January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2019. Eight academic databases pertaining to public health, and communication and psychology were consulted, namely: Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL, and PsycArticles. Additional records identified through other sources included the references of reviews and two websites, Cyberbullying Research Center and United Nations Children's Fund. A total of 63 studies out of 2070 were included in our final review focusing on cyberbullying prevalence and risk factors.

Results: The prevalence rates of cyberbullying preparation ranged from 6.0 to 46.3%, while the rates of cyberbullying victimization ranged from 13.99 to 57.5%, based on 63 references. Verbal violence was the most common type of cyberbullying. Fourteen risk factors and three protective factors were revealed in this study. At the personal level, variables associated with cyberbullying including age, gender, online behavior, race, health condition, past experience of victimization, and impulsiveness were reviewed as risk factors. Likewise, at the situational level, parent-child relationship, interpersonal relationships, and geographical location were also reviewed in relation to cyberbullying. As for protective factors, empathy and emotional intelligence, parent-child relationship, and school climate were frequently mentioned.

Conclusion: The prevalence rate of cyberbullying has increased significantly in the observed 5-year period, and it is imperative that researchers from low and middle income countries focus sufficient attention on cyberbullying of children and adolescents. Despite a lack of scientific intervention research on cyberbullying, the review also identified several promising strategies for its prevention from the perspectives of youths, parents and schools. More research on cyberbullying is needed, especially on the issue of cross-national cyberbullying. International cooperation, multi-pronged and systematic approaches are highly encouraged to deal with cyberbullying.

Introduction

Childhood and adolescence are not only periods of growth, but also of emerging risk taking. Young people during these periods are particularly vulnerable and cannot fully understand the connection between behaviors and consequences ( 1 ). With peer pressures, the heat of passion, children and adolescents usually perform worse than adults when people are required to maintain self-discipline to achieve good results in unfamiliar situations. Impulsiveness, sensation seeking, thrill seeking, and other individual differences cause adolescents to risk rejecting standardized risk interventions ( 2 ).

About one-third of Internet users in the world are children and adolescents under the age of 18 ( 3 ). Digital technology provide a new form of interpersonal communication ( 4 ). However, surveys and news reports also show another picture in the Internet Age. The dark side of young people's internet usage is that they may bully or suffer from others' bullying in cyberspace. This behavior is also acknowledged as cyberbullying ( 5 ). Based on Olweus's definition, cyberbullying is usually regarded as bullying implemented through electronic media ( 6 , 7 ). Specifically, cyberbullying among children and adolescents can be summarized as the intentional and repeated harm from one or more peers that occurs in cyberspace caused by the use of computers, smartphones and other devices ( 4 , 8 – 12 ). In recent years, new forms of cyberbullying behaviors have emerged, such as cyberstalking and online dating abuse ( 13 – 15 ).

Although cyberbullying is still a relatively new field of research, cyberbullying among adolescents is considered to be a serious public health issue that is closely related to adolescents' behavior, mental health and development ( 16 , 17 ). The increasing rate of Internet adoption worldwide and the popularity of social media platforms among the young people have worsened this situation with most children and adolescents experiencing cyberbullying or online victimization during their lives. The confines of space and time are alleviated for bullies in virtual environments, creating new venues for cyberbullying with no geographical boundaries ( 6 ). Cyberbullying exerts negative effects on many aspects of young people's lives, including personal privacy invasion and psychological disorders. The influence of cyberbullying may be worse than traditional bullying as perpetrators can act anonymously and connect easily with children and adolescents at any time ( 18 ). In comparison with traditional victims, those bullied online show greater levels of depression, anxiety and loneliness ( 19 ). Self-esteem problems and school absenteeism have also proven to be related to cyberbullying ( 20 ).

Due to changes in use and behavioral patterns among the youth on social media, the manifestations and risk factors of cyberbullying have faced significant transformation. Further, as the boundaries of cyberbullying are not limited by geography, cyberbullying may not be a problem contained within a single country. In this sense, cyberbullying is a global problem and tackling it requires greater international collaboration. The adverse effects caused by cyberbullying, including reduced safety, lower educational attainment, poorer mental health and greater unhappiness, led UNICEF to state that “no child is absolutely safe in the digital world” ( 3 ).

Extant research has examined the prevalence and risk factors of cyberbullying to unravel the complexity of cyberbullying across different countries and their corresponding causes. However, due to variations in cyberbullying measurement and methodologies, no consistent conclusions have been drawn ( 21 ). Studies into inconsistencies in prevalence rates of cyberbullying, measured in the same country during the same time period, occur frequently. Selkie et al. systematically reviewed cyberbullying among American middle and high school students aged 10–19 years old in 2015, and revealed that the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization ranged from 3 to 72%, while perpetration ranged from 1 to 41% ( 22 ). Risk and protective factors have also been broadly studied, but confirmation is still needed of those factors which have more significant effects on cyberbullying among young people. Clarification of these issues would be useful to allow further research to recognize cyberbullying more accurately.

This review aims to extend prior contributions and provide a comprehensive review of cyberbullying of children and adolescents from a global perspective, with the focus being on prevalence, associated risk factors and protective factors across countries. It is necessary to provide a global panorama based on research syntheses to fill the gaps in knowledge on this topic.

Search Strategies

This study strictly employed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We consulted eight academic databases pertaining to public health, and communication and psychology, namely: Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL, and PsycArticles. Additional records identified through other sources included the references of reviews and two websites, Cyberbullying Research Center and United Nations Children's Fund. With regard to the duration of our review, since most studies on cyberbullying arose around 2015 ( 9 , 21 ), this study highlights the complementary aspects of the available information about cyberbullying during the recent 5 year period from January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2019.

One researcher extracted keywords and two researchers proposed modifications. We used two sets of subject terms to review articles, “cyberbullying” and “child OR adolescent.” Some keywords that refer to cyberbullying behaviors and young people are also included, such as threat, harass, intimidate, abuse, insult, humiliate, condemn, isolate, embarrass, forgery, slander, flame, stalk, manhunt, as well as teen, youth, young people and student. The search formula is (cyberbullying OR cyber-bullying OR cyber-aggression OR ((cyber OR online OR electronic OR Internet) AND (bully * OR aggres * OR violence OR perpetrat * OR victim * OR threat * OR harass * OR intimidat * OR * OR insult * OR humiliate * OR condemn * OR isolate * OR embarrass * OR forgery OR slander * OR flame OR stalk * OR manhunt))) AND (adolescen * OR child OR children OR teen? OR teenager? OR youth? OR “young people” OR “elementary school student * ” OR “middle school student * ” OR “high school student * ”). The main search approach is title search. Search strategies varied according to the database consulted, and we did not limit the type of literature for inclusion. Journals, conference papers and dissertations are all available.

Specifically, the inclusion criteria for our study were as follows: (a). reported or evaluated the prevalence and possible risk factors associated with cyberbullying, (b). respondents were students under the age of 18 or in primary, junior or senior high schools, and (c). studies were written in English. Exclusion criteria were: (a). respondents came from specific groups, such as clinical samples, children with disabilities, sexual minorities, specific ethnic groups, specific faith groups or samples with cross-national background, (b). review studies, qualitative studies, conceptual studies, book reviews, news reports or abstracts of meetings, and (c). studies focused solely on preventive measures that were usually meta-analytic and qualitative in nature. Figure 1 presents the details of the employed screening process, showing that a total of 63 studies out of 2070 were included in our final review.

Figure 1 . PRISMA flow chart diagram showing the process of study selection for inclusion in the systematic review on children and adolescents cyberbullying.

Meta-analysis was not conducted as the limited research published within the 5 years revealed little research which reported odds ratio. On the other hand, due to the inconsistency of concepts, measuring instruments and recall periods, considerable variation could be found in research quality ( 23 ). Meta-analysis is not a preferred method.

Coding Scheme

For coding, we created a comprehensive code scheme to include the characteristics. For cyberbullying, we coded five types proposed by Willard ( 24 – 26 ), which included verbal violence, group violence, visual violence, impersonating and account forgery, and other behaviors. Among them, verbal violence is considered one of the most common types of cyberbullying and refers to the behavior of offensive responses, insults, mocking, threats, slander, and harassment. Group violence is associated with preventing others from joining certain groups or isolating others, forcing others to leave the group. Visual violence relates to the release and sharing of embarrassing photos and information without the owners' consent. Impersonating and account forgery refers to identity theft, stealing passwords, violating accounts and the creation of fake accounts to fraudulently present the behavior of others. Other behaviors include disclosure of privacy, sexual harassment, and cyberstalking. To comprehensively examine cyberbullying, we coded cyberbullying behaviors from both the perspectives of cyberbullying perpetrators and victims, if mentioned in the studies.

In relation to risk factors, we drew insights from the general aggression model, which contributes to the understanding of personal and situational factors in the cyberbullying of children and adolescents. We chose the general aggression model because (a) it contains more situational factors than other models (e.g., social ecological models) - such as school climate ( 9 ), and (b) we believe that the general aggression model is more suitable for helping researchers conduct a systematic review of cyberbullying risk and protective factors. This model provides a comprehensive framework that integrates domain specific theories of aggression, and has been widely applied in cyberbullying research ( 27 ). For instance, Kowalski and colleagues proposed a cyberbullying encounter through the general aggression model to understand the formation and development process of youth cyberbullying related to both victimization and perpetration ( 9 ). Victims and perpetrators enter the cyberbullying encounter with various individual characteristics, experiences, attitudes, desires, personalities, and motives that intersect to determine the course of the interaction. Correspondingly, the antecedents pertaining to cyberbullying are divided into two broad categories, personal factors and situational factors. Personal factors refer to individual characteristics, such as gender, age, motivation, personality, psychological states, socioeconomic status and technology use, values and perceptions, and other maladaptive behaviors. Situational factors focus on the provocation/support, parental involvement, school climate, and perceived anonymity. Consequently, our coders related to risk factors consisting of personal factors and situational factors from the perspectives of both cyberbullying perpetrators and victims.

We extracted information relating to individual papers and sample characteristics, including authors, year of publication, country, article type, sampling procedures, sample characteristics, measures of cyberbullying, and prevalence and risk factors from both cyberbullying perpetration and victimization perspectives. The key words extraction and coding work were performed twice by two trained research assistants in health informatics. The consistency test results are as follows: the Kappa value with “personal factors” was 0.932, and the Kappa value with “situational factors” was 0.807. The result shows that the coding consistency was high enough and acceptable. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with other authors.

Quality Assessment of Studies

The quality assessment of the studies is based on the recommended tool for assessing risk of bias, Cochrane Collaboration. This quality assessment tool focused on seven items: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias ( 28 ). We assessed each item as “low risk,” “high risk,” and “unclear” for included studies. A study is considered of “high quality” when it meets three or more “low risk” requirements. When one or more main flaw of a study may affect the research results, the study is considered as “low quality.” When a lack of information leads to a difficult judgement, the quality is considered to be “unclear.” Please refer to Appendix 1 for more details.

This comprehensive systematic review comprised a total of 63 studies. Appendices 2 , 3 show the descriptive information of the studies included. Among them, 58 (92%) studies measured two or more cyberbullying behavior types. The sample sizes of the youths range from several hundred to tens of thousands, with one thousand to five thousand being the most common. As for study distribution, the United States of America, Spain and China were most frequently mentioned. Table 1 presents the detail.

Table 1 . Descriptive information of studies included (2015–2019).

Prevalence of Global Cyberbullying

Prevalence across countries.

Among the 63 studies included, 22 studies reported on cyberbullying prevalence and 20 studies reported on prevalence from victimization and perpetration perspectives, respectively. Among the 20 studies, 11 national studies indicated that the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and cyberbullying perpetration ranged from 14.6 to 52.2% and 6.3 to 32%, respectively. These studies were conducted in the United States of America ( N = 4) ( 29 – 32 ), South Korea ( N = 3) ( 33 – 35 ), Singapore ( N = 1) ( 36 ), Malaysia ( N = 1) ( 37 ), Israel ( N = 1) ( 38 ), and Canada ( N = 1) ( 39 ). Only one of these 11 national studies is from an upper middle income country, and the rest are from highincome countries identified by the World Bank ( 40 ). By combining regional and community-level studies, the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and cyberbullying perpetration ranged from 13.99 to 57.5% and 6.0 to 46.3%, respectively. Spain reported the highest prevalence of cyberbullying victimization (57.5%) ( 41 ), followed by Malaysia (52.2%) ( 37 ), Israel (45%) ( 42 ), and China (44.5%) ( 43 ). The lowest reported victim rates were observed in Canada (13.99%) and South Korea (14.6%) ( 34 , 39 ). The reported prevalence of cyberbullying victimization in the United States of America ranged from 15.5 to 31.4% ( 29 , 44 ), while in Israel, rates ranged from 30 to 45% ( 26 , 42 ). In China, rates ranged from 6 to 46.3% with the country showing the highest prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration (46.30%) ( 15 , 43 , 45 , 46 ). Canadian and South Korean studies reported the lowest prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration at 7.99 and 6.3%, respectively ( 34 , 39 ).

A total of 10 studies were assessed as high quality studies. Among them, six studies came from high income countries, including Canada, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and South Korea ( 13 , 34 , 39 , 46 – 48 ). Three studies were from upper middle income countries, including Malaysia and China ( 37 , 43 ) and one from a lower middle income country, Nigeria ( 49 ). Figures 2 , 3 describe the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration respectively among high quality studies.

Figure 2 . The prevalence of cyberbullying victimization of high quality studies.

Figure 3 . The prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration of high quality studies.

Prevalence of Various Cyberbullying Behaviors

For the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration, the data were reported in 18 and 14 studies, respectively. Figure 4 shows the distribution characteristics of the estimated value of prevalence of different cyberbullying behaviors with box plots. The longer the box, the greater the degree of variation of the numerical data and vice versa. The rate of victimization and crime of verbal violence, as well as the rate of victimization of other behaviors, such as cyberstalking and digital dating abuse, has a large degree of variation. Among the four specified types of cyberbullying behaviors, verbal violence was regarded as the most commonly reported behaviors in both perpetration and victimization rates, with a wide range of prevalence, ranging from 5 to 18%. Fewer studies reported the prevalence data for visual violence and group violence. Studies also showed that the prevalence of impersonation and account forgery were within a comparatively small scale. Specific results were as follows.

Figure 4 . Cyberbullying prevalence across types (2015–2019).

Verbal Violence

A total of 13 studies reported verbal violence prevalence data ( 15 , 26 , 34 , 37 – 39 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 ). Ten studies reported the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranging from 2.8 to 47.5%, while seven studies claimed perpetration prevalence ranging from 1.5 to 31.8%. Malaysia reported the highest prevalence of verbal violence victimization (47.5%) ( 37 ), followed by China (32%) ( 43 ). China reported that the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranged from 5.1 to 32% ( 15 , 43 ). Israel reported that the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranged from 3.4 to 18% ( 26 , 38 , 42 ). For perpetration rate, Malaysia reported the highest level at 31.8% ( 37 ), while a study for Spain reported the lowest, ranging from 3.2 to 6.4% ( 51 ).

Group Violence

The prevalence of group violence victimization was explored within 4 studies and ranged from 5 to 17.8% ( 26 , 34 , 42 , 43 ), while perpetration prevalence was reported in three studies, ranging from 10.1 to 19.07% ( 34 , 43 , 47 ). An Israeli study suggested that 9.8% of respondents had been excluded from the Internet, while 8.9% had been refused entry to a group or team ( 26 ). A study in South Korea argued that the perpetration prevalence of group violence was 10.1% ( 34 ), while a study in Italy reported that the rate of online group violence against others was 19.07% ( 47 ).

Visual Violence

The prevalence of visual violence victimization was explored within three studies and ranged from 2.6 to 12.1% ( 26 , 34 , 43 ), while the perpetration prevalence reported in four studies ranged from 1.7 to 6% ( 34 , 43 , 47 , 48 ). For victimization prevalence, a South Korean study found that 12.1% of respondents reported that their personal information was leaked online ( 34 ). An Israel study reported that the prevalence of outing the picture was 2.6% ( 26 ). For perpetration prevalence, a South Korean study found that 1.7% of respondents had reported that they had disclosed someone's personal information online ( 34 ). A German study reported that 6% of respondents had written a message (e.g., an email) to somebody using a fake identity ( 48 ).

Impersonating and Account Forgery

Four studies reported on the victimization prevalence of impersonating and account forgery, ranging from 1.1 to 10% ( 15 , 42 , 43 ), while five studies reported on perpetration prevalence, with the range being from 1.3 to 9.31% ( 15 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 51 ). In a Spanish study, 10% of respondents reported that their accounts had been infringed by others or that they could not access their account due to stolen passwords. In contrast, 4.5% of respondents reported that they had infringed other people's accounts or stolen passwords, with 2.5% stating that they had forged other people's accounts ( 51 ). An Israeli study reported that the prevalence of being impersonated was 7% ( 42 ), while in China, a study reported this to be 8.6% ( 43 ). Another study from China found that 1.1% of respondents had been impersonated to send dating-for-money messages ( 15 ).

Other Behaviors

The prevalence of disclosure of privacy, sexual harassment, and cyberstalking were also explored by scholars. Six studies reported the victimization prevalence of other cyberbullying behaviors ( 13 , 15 , 34 , 37 , 42 , 43 ), and four studies reported on perpetration prevalence ( 34 , 37 , 43 , 48 ). A study in China found that 1.2% of respondents reported that their privacy had been compromised without permission due to disputes ( 15 ). A study from China reported the prevalence of cyberstalking victimization was 11.9% ( 43 ), while a Portuguese study reported that this was 62% ( 13 ). In terms of perpetration prevalence, a Malaysian study reported 2.7% for sexual harassment ( 37 ).

Risk and Protective Factors of Cyberbullying

In terms of the risk factors associated with cyberbullying among children and adolescents, this comprehensive review highlighted both personal and situational factors. Personal factors referred to age, gender, online behavior, race, health conditions, past experiences of victimization, and impulsiveness, while situational factors consisted of parent-child relationship, interpersonal relationships, and geographical location. In addition, protective factors against cyberbullying included: empathy and emotional intelligence, parent-child relationship, and school climate. Table 2 shows the risk and protective factors for child and adolescent cyberbullying.

Table 2 . Risk and protective factors of cyberbullying among children and adolescents.

In terms of the risk factors associated with cyberbullying victimization at the personal level, many studies evidenced that females were more likely to be cyberbullied than males ( 13 , 26 , 29 , 38 , 43 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 58 ). Meanwhile, adolescents with mental health problems ( 61 ), such as depression ( 33 , 62 ), borderline personality disorder ( 63 ), eating disorders ( 41 ), sleep deprivation ( 56 ), and suicidal thoughts and suicide plans ( 64 ), were more likely to be associated with cyberbullying victimization. As for Internet usage, researchers agreed that youth victims were probably those that spent more time online than their counterparts ( 32 , 36 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 60 ). For situational risk factors, some studies have proven the relationship between cyberbullying victims and parental abuse, parental neglect, family dysfunction, inadequate monitoring, and parents' inconsistency in mediation, as well as communication issues ( 33 , 64 , 68 , 73 ). In terms of geographical location, some studies have reported that youths residing in city locations are more likely to be victims of cyberbullying than their peers from suburban areas ( 61 ).

Regarding the risk factors of cyberbullying perpetration at the personal level, it is generally believed that older teenagers, especially those aged over 15 years, are at greater risk of becoming cyberbullying perpetrators ( 55 , 67 ). When considering prior cyberbullying experiences, evidence showed that individuals who had experienced cyberbullying or face-to-face bullying tended to be aggressors in cyberbullying ( 35 , 42 , 49 , 51 , 55 ); in addition, the relationship between impulsiveness and cyberbullying perpetration was also explored by several pioneering scholars ( 55 , 72 , 80 ). The situational factors highlight the role of parents and teachers in cyberbullying experiences. For example, over-control and authoritarian parenting styles, as well as inharmonious teacher-student relationships ( 61 ) are perceived to lead to cyberbullying behaviors ( 74 , 75 ). In terms of differences in geographical locations, students residing in cities have a higher rate of online harassment than students living in more rural locations ( 49 ).

In terms of the protective factors in child and adolescent cyberbullying, scholars have focused on youths who have limited experiences of cyberbullying. At the personal level, high emotional intelligence, an ability for emotional self-control and empathy, such as cognitive empathy ability ( 44 , 55 ), were associated with lower rates of cyberbullying ( 57 ). At the situational level, a parent's role is seen as critical. For example, intimate parent-child relationships ( 46 ) and open active communication ( 19 ) were demonstrated to be related to lower experiences of cyberbullying and perpetration. Some scholars argued that parental supervision and monitoring of children's online activities can reduce their tendency to participate in some negative activities associated with cyberbullying ( 31 , 46 , 73 ). They further claimed that an authoritative parental style protects youths against cyberbullying ( 43 ). Conversely, another string of studies evidenced that parents' supervision of Internet usage was meaningless ( 45 ). In addition to conflicting roles of parental supervision, researchers have also looked into the role of schools, and posited that positive school climates contribute to less cyberbullying experiences ( 61 , 79 ).

Some risk factors may be protective factors under another condition. Some studies suggest that parental aggressive communication is related to severe cyberbullying victims, while open communication is a potential protective factor ( 19 ). Parental neglect, parental abuse, parental inconsistency in supervision of adolescents' online behavior, and family dysfunction are related to the direct or indirect harm of cyberbullying ( 33 , 68 ). Parental participation, a good parental-children relationship, communication and dialogue can enhance children's school adaptability and prevent cyberbullying behaviors ( 31 , 74 ). When parental monitoring reaches a balance between control and openness, it could become a protective factor against cyberbullying, and it could be a risk factor, if parental monitoring is too low or over-controlled ( 47 ).

Despite frequent discussion about the risk factors associated with cyberbullying among children and adolescents, some are still deemed controversial factors, such as age, race, gender, and the frequency of suffering on the internet. For cyberbullying victims, some studies claim that older teenagers are more vulnerable to cyberbullying ( 15 , 38 , 52 , 53 ), while other studies found conflicting results ( 26 , 33 ). As for student race, Alhajji et al. argued that non-white students were less likely to report cyberbullying ( 29 ), while Morin et al. observed no significant correlation between race and cyberbullying ( 52 ). For cyberbullying perpetration, Alvarez-Garcia found that gender differences may have indirect effects on cyberbullying perpetration ( 55 ), while others disagreed ( 42 , 61 , 68 – 70 ). Specifically, some studies revealed that males were more likely to become cyberbullying perpetrators ( 34 , 39 , 56 ), while Khurana et al. presented an opposite point of view, proposing that females were more likely to attack others ( 71 ). In terms of time spent on the Internet, some claimed that students who frequently surf the Internet had a higher chance of becoming perpetrators ( 49 ), while others stated that there was no clear and direct association between Internet usage and cyberbullying perpetration ( 55 ).

In addition to personal and situational factors, scholars have also explored other specific factors pertaining to cyberbullying risk and protection. For instance, mindfulness and depression were found to be significantly related to cyber perpetration ( 76 ), while eating disorder psychopathology in adolescents was associated with cyber victimization ( 41 ). For males who were familiar with their victims, such as family members, friends and acquaintances, they were more likely to be cyberstalking perpetrators than females or strangers, while pursuing desired closer relationships ( 13 ). In the school context, a lower social likability in class was identified as an indirect factor for cyberbullying ( 48 ).

This comprehensive review has established that the prevalence of global childhood and adolescent victimization from cyberbullying ranges from 13.99 to 57.5%, and that the perpetration prevalence ranges from 6.0 to 46.3%. Across the studies included in our research, verbal violence is observed as one of the most common acts of cyberbullying, including verbal offensive responses, insults, mocking, threats, slander, and harassment. The victimization prevalence of verbal violence is reported to be between 5 and 47.5%, and the perpetration prevalence is between 3.2 and 26.1%. Personal factors, such as gender, frequent use of social media platforms, depression, borderline personality disorder, eating disorders, sleep deprivation, and suicidal tendencies, were generally considered to be related to becoming a cyberbullying victim. Personal factors, such as high school students, past experiences, impulse, improperly controlled family education, poor teacher-student relationships, and the urban environment, were considered risk factors for cyberbullying perpetration. Situational factors, including parental abuse and neglect, improper monitoring, communication barriers between parents and children, as well as the urban environment, were also seen to potentially contribute to higher risks of both cyberbullying victimization and perpetration.

Increasing Prevalence of Global Cyberbullying With Changing Social Media Landscape and Measurement Alterations

This comprehensive review suggests that global cyberbullying rates, in terms of victimization and perpetration, were on the rise during the 5 year period, from 2015 to 2019. For example, in an earlier study conducted by Modecki et al. the average cyberbullying involvement rate was 15% ( 81 ). Similar observations were made by Hamm et al. who found that the median rates of youth having experienced bullying or who had bullied others online, was 23 and 15.2%, respectively ( 82 ). However, our systematic review summarized global children and adolescents cyberbullying in the last 5 years and revealed an average cyberbullying perpetration rate of 25.03%, ranging from 6.0 to 46.3%, while the average victimization was 33.08%, ranging from 13.99 to 57.5%. The underlying reason for increases may be attributed to the rapid changing landscape of social media and, in recent years, the drastic increase in Internet penetration rates. With the rise in Internet access, youths have greater opportunities to participate in online activities, provided by emerging social media platforms.

Although our review aims to provide a broader picture of cyberbullying, it is well-noted in extant research that difficulties exist in accurately estimating variations in prevalence in different countries ( 23 , 83 ). Many reasons exist to explain this. The first largely relates poor or unclear definition of the term cyberbullying; this hinders the determination of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration ( 84 ). Although traditional bullying behavior is well-defined, the definition cannot directly be applied to the virtual environment due to the complexity in changing online interactions. Without consensus on definitions, measurement and cyberbullying types may vary noticeably ( 83 , 85 ). Secondly, the estimation of prevalence of cyberbullying is heavily affected by research methods, such as recall period (lifetime, last year, last 6 months, last month, or last week etc.), demographic characteristics of the survey sample (age, gender, race, etc.), perspectives of cyberbullying experiences (victims, perpetrators, or both victim and perpetrator), and instruments (scales, study-specific questions) ( 23 , 84 , 86 ). The variety in research tools and instruments used to assess the prevalence of cyberbullying can cause confusion on this issue ( 84 ). Thirdly, variations in economic development, cultural backgrounds, human values, internet penetration rates, and frequency of using social media may lead to different conclusions across countries ( 87 ).

Acknowledging the Conflicting Role of the Identified Risk Factors With More Research Needed to Establish the Causality

Although this review has identified many personal and situational factors associated with cyberbullying, the majority of studies adopted a cross-sectional design and failed to reveal the causality ( 21 ). Nevertheless, knowledge on these correlational relationships provide valuable insights for understanding and preventing cyberbullying incidents. In terms of gender differences, females are believed to be at a higher risk of cyberbullying victimization compared to males. Two reasons may help to explain this. First, the preferred violence behaviors between two genders. females prefer indirect harassment, such as the spreading of rumors, while males tend toward direct bullying (e.g., assault) ( 29 ) and second, the cultural factors. From the traditional gender perspective, females tended to perceive a greater risk of communicating with others on the Internet, while males were more reluctant to express fear, vulnerability and insecurity when asked about their cyberbullying experiences ( 46 ). Females were more intolerant when experiencing cyberstalking and were more likely to report victimization experiences than males ( 13 ). Meanwhile, many researchers suggested that females are frequent users of emerging digital communication platforms, which increases their risk of unpleasant interpersonal contact and violence. From the perspective of cultural norms and masculinity, the reporting of cyberbullying is also widely acknowledged ( 37 ). For example, in addition, engaging in online activities is also regarded as a critical predictor for cyberbullying victimization. Enabled by the Internet, youths can easily find potential victims and start harassment at any time ( 49 ). Participating in online activities directly increases the chance of experiencing cyberbullying victimization and the possibility of becoming a victim ( 36 , 45 ). As for age, earlier involvement on social media and instant messaging tools may increase the chances of experiencing cyberbullying. For example, in Spain, these tools cannot be used without parental permission before the age of 14 ( 55 ). Besides, senior students were more likely to be more impulsive and less sympathetic. They may portray more aggressive and anti-social behaviors ( 55 , 72 ); hence senior students and students with higher impulsivity were usually more likely to become cyberbullying perpetrators.

Past experiences of victimization and family-related factors are another risk for cyberbullying crime. As for past experiences, one possible explanation is that young people who had experienced online or traditional school bullying may commit cyberbullying using e-mails, instant messages, and text messages for revenge, self-protection, or improving their social status ( 35 , 42 , 49 , 55 ). In becoming a cyberbullying perpetrator, the student may feel more powerful and superior, externalizing angry feelings and relieving the feelings of helplessness and sadness produced by past victimization experiences ( 51 ). As for family related factors, parenting styles are proven to be highly correlated to cyberbullying. In authoritative families, parents focus on rational behavioral control with clear rules and a high component of supervision and parental warmth, which have beneficial effects on children's lifestyles ( 43 ). Conversely, in indulgent families, children's behaviors are not heavily restricted and parents guide and encourage their children to adapt to society. The characteristics of this indulgent style, including parental support, positive communication, low imposition, and emotional expressiveness, possibly contribute to more parent-child trust and less misunderstanding ( 75 ). The protective role of warmth/affection and appropriate supervision, which are common features of authoritative or indulgent parenting styles, mitigate youth engagement in cyberbullying. On the contrary, authoritarian and neglectful styles, whether with excessive or insufficient control, are both proven to be risk factors for being a target of cyberbullying ( 33 , 76 ). In terms of geographical location, although several studies found that children residing in urban areas were more likely to be cyberbullying victims than those living in rural or suburban areas, we cannot draw a quick conclusion here, since whether this difference attributes to macro-level differences, such as community safety or socioeconomic status, or micro-level differences, such as teacher intervention in the classroom, courses provided, teacher-student ratio, is unclear across studies ( 61 ). An alternative explanation for this is the higher internet usage rate in urban areas ( 49 ).

Regarding health conditions, especially mental health, some scholars believe that young people with health problems are more likely to be identified as victims than people without health problems. They perceive health condition as a risk factor for cyberbullying ( 61 , 63 ). On the other hand, another group of scholars believe that cyberbullying has an important impact on the mental health of adolescents which can cause psychological distress consequences, such as post-traumatic stress mental disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, and drug abuse ( 70 , 87 ). It is highly possible that mental health could be risk factors, consequences of cyberbullying or both. Mental health cannot be used as standards, requirements, or decisive responses in cyberbullying research ( 13 ).

The Joint Effort Between Youth, Parents, Schools, and Communities to Form a Cyberbullying-Free Environment

This comprehensive review suggests that protecting children and adolescents from cyberbullying requires joint efforts between individuals, parents, schools, and communities, to form a cyberbullying-free environment. For individuals, young people are expected to improve their digital technology capabilities, especially in the use of social media platforms and instant messaging tools ( 55 ). To reduce the number of cyberbullying perpetrators, it is necessary to cultivate emotional self-regulation ability through appropriate emotional management training. Moreover, teachers, counselors, and parents are required to be armed with sufficient knowledge of emotional management and to develop emotional management capabilities and skills. In this way, they can be alert to the aggressive or angry emotions expressed by young people, and help them mediate any negative emotions ( 45 ), and avoid further anti-social behaviors ( 57 ).

For parents, styles of parenting involving a high level of parental involvement, care and support, are desirable in reducing the possibility of children's engagement in cyberbullying ( 74 , 75 ). If difficulties are encountered, open communication can contribute to enhancing the sense of security ( 73 ). In this vein, parents should be aware of the importance of caring, communicating and supervising their children, and participate actively in their children's lives ( 71 ). In order to keep a balance between control and openness ( 47 ), parents can engage in unbiased open communication with their children, and reach an agreement on the usage of computers and smart phones ( 34 , 35 , 55 ). Similarly, it is of vital importance to establish a positive communication channel with children ( 19 ).

For schools, a higher priority is needed to create a safe and positive campus environment, providing students with learning opportunities and ensuring that every student is treated equally. With a youth-friendly environment, students are able to focus more on their academic performance and develop a strong sense of belonging to the school ( 79 ). For countries recognizing collectivist cultural values, such as China and India, emphasizing peer attachment and a sense of collectivism can reduce the risk of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization ( 78 ). Besides, schools can cooperate with mental health agencies and neighboring communities to develop preventive programs, such as extracurricular activities and training ( 44 , 53 , 62 ). Specifically, school-based preventive measures against cyberbullying are expected to be sensitive to the characteristics of young people at different ages, and the intersection of race and school diversity ( 29 , 76 ). It is recommended that school policies that aim to embrace diversity and embody mutual respect among students are created ( 26 ). Considering the high prevalence of cyberbullying and a series of serious consequences, it is suggested that intervention against cyberbullying starts from an early stage, at about 10 years old ( 54 ). Schools can organize seminars to strengthen communication between teachers and students so that they can better understand the needs of students ( 61 ). In addition, schools should encourage cyberbullying victims to seek help and provide students with opportunities to report cyberbullying behaviors, such as creating online anonymous calls.

Conclusions and Limitations

The comprehensive study has reviewed related research on children and adolescents cyberbullying across different countries and regions, providing a positive understanding of the current situation of cyberbullying. The number of studies on cyberbullying has surged in the last 5 years, especially those related to risk factors and protective factors of cyberbullying. However, research on effective prevention is insufficient and evaluation of policy tools for cyberbullying intervention is a nascent research field. Our comprehensive review concludes with possible strategies for cyberbullying prevention, including personal emotion management, digital ability training, policy applicability, and interpersonal skills. We highlight the important role of parental control in cyberbullying prevention. As for the role of parental control, it depends on whether children believe their parents are capable of adequately supporting them, rather than simply interfering in their lives, restricting their online behavior, and controlling or removing their devices ( 50 ). In general, cyberbullying is on the rise, with the effectiveness of interventions to meet this problem still requiring further development and exploration ( 83 ).

Considering the overlaps between cyberbullying and traditional offline bullying, future research can explore the unique risk and protective factors that are distinguishable from traditional bullying ( 86 ). To further reveal the variations, researchers can compare the outcomes of interventions conducted in cyberbullying and traditional bullying preventions simultaneously, and the same interventions only targeting cyberbullying ( 88 ). In addition, cyberbullying also reflects a series of other social issues, such as personal privacy and security, public opinion monitoring, multinational perpetration and group crimes. To address this problem, efforts from multiple disciplines and novel analytical methods in the digital era are required. As the Internet provides enormous opportunities to connect young people from all over the world, cyberbullying perpetrators may come from transnational networks. Hence, cyberbullying of children and adolescents, involving multiple countries, is worth further attention.

Our study has several limitations. First, national representative studies are scarce, while few studies from middle and low income countries were included in our research due to language restrictions. Many of the studies included were conducted in schools, communities, provinces, and cities in high income countries. Meanwhile, our review only focused on victimization and perpetration. Future studies should consider more perspectives, such as bystanders and those with the dual identity of victim/perpetrator, to comprehensively analyze the risk and protective factors of cyberbullying.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

SH, CZ, RE, and WZ conceived the study and developed the design. WZ analyzed the result and supervised the study. CZ and SH wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909/full#supplementary-material

1. Ang RP. Adolescent cyberbullying: a review of characteristics, prevention and intervention strategies. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 25:35–42. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Reyna VF, Farley F. Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychol Sci Public Interest. (2006) 7:1–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. UNICEF ed. Children in a Digital World . New York, NY: UNICEF (2017).

Google Scholar

4. Thomas HJ, Connor JP, Scott JG. Integrating traditional bullying and cyberbullying: challenges of definition and measurement in adolescents - a review. Educ Psychol Rev. (2015) 27:135–52. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9261-7

5. Baldry AC, Farrington DP, Sorrentino A. “Am I at risk of cyberbullying”? A narrative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and cybervictimization: the risk and needs assessment approach. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:36–51. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.014

6. Olweus D. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do . Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell (1993).

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

7. Dooley JJ, Pyzalski J, Cross D. Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: a theoretical and conceptual review. J Psychol. (2009) 217:182–8. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182

8. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tippett N. Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2008) 49:376–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x

9. Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychol Bull. (2014) 140:1073–137. doi: 10.1037/a0035618

10. León Vicente I. Cybervictimization by cyberbullying: children at risk and children as risk (dissertation). University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain (2016).

11. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Identification, Prevention, and Response. (2020).

12. Jadambaa A, Thomas HJ, Scott JG, Graves N, Brain D, Pacella R. Prevalence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents in Australia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. (2019) 53:878–88. doi: 10.1177/0004867419846393

13. Pereira F, Matos M. Cyber-stalking victimization: what predicts fear among Portuguese adolescents? Eur J Crim Policy Res. (2016) 22:253–70. doi: 10.1007/s10610-015-9285-7

14. Reed LA, Ward LM, Tolman RM, Lippman JR, Seabrook RC. The association between stereotypical gender and dating beliefs and digital dating abuse perpetration in adolescent dating relationships. J Interpers Violence . (2018). doi: 10.1177/0886260518801933

15. Huang CL, Yang SC, Hsieh LS. The cyberbullying behavior of Taiwanese adolescents in an online gaming environment. Children Youth Serv Rev. (2019) 106:104461. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104461

16. Raskauskas J, Huynh A. The process of coping with cyberbullying: a systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:118–25. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.019

17. Bradshaw J, Crous G, Rees G, Turner N. Comparing children's experiences of schools-based bullying across countries. Children Youth Serv Rev. (2017) 80:171–80. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.060

18. Hutson E, Kelly S, Militello LK. Systematic review of cyberbullying interventions for youth and parents with implications for evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. (2018) 15:72–9. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12257

19. Larranaga E, Yubero S, Ovejero A, Navarro R. Loneliness, parent-child communication and cyberbullying victimization among Spanish youths. Comp Hum Behav. (2016) 65:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.015

20. van Geel M, Vedder P, Tanilon J. Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. (2014) 168:435–42. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4143

21. Zych I, Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R. Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:1–21. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001

22. Selkie EM, Kota R, Chan Y-F, Moreno M. Cyberbullying, depression, and problem alcohol use in female college students: a multisite study. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. (2015) 18:79–86. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0371

23. Brochado S, Soares S, Fraga S. A scoping review on studies of cyberbullying prevalence among adolescents. Trauma Violence Abus. (2017) 18:523–31. doi: 10.1177/1524838016641668

24. Nocentini A, Calmaestra J, Schultze-Krumbholz A, Scheithauer H, Ortega R, Menesini E. Cyberbullying: labels, behaviours and definition in three European Countries. Aust J Guid Couns. (2010) 20:129–42. doi: 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129

25. Willard NE. Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress . Champaign: Research Press (2007).

26. Aizenkot D, Kashy-Rosenbaum G. Cyberbullying victimization in whatsapp classmate groups among Israeli Elementary, Middle, and High School Students. J Interpers Violence . (2019). doi: 10.1177/0886260519842860

27. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Human aggression. Ann Rev Psychol. (2002) 53:27–51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231

28. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions . (2011). Available online at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ (accessed January 17, 2021).

29. Alhajji M, Bass S, Dai T. Cyberbullying, mental health, and violence in adolescents and associations with sex and race: data from the 2015 youth risk behavior survey. Global Pediatr Health . (2019) 6:2333794X19868887. doi: 10.1177/2333794X19868887

30. Grinshteyn E, Yang YT. The association between electronic bullying and school absenteeism among high school students in the United States. J School Health. (2017) 87:142–9. doi: 10.1111/josh.12476

31. Mesch GS. Parent-child connections on social networking sites and cyberbullying. Youth Soc. (2018) 50:1145–62. doi: 10.1177/0044118X16659685

32. Sam J, Wisniewski P, Xu H, Rosson MB, Carroll JM. How are social capital and parental mediation associated with cyberbullying and cybervictimization among youth in the United States? In: Stephanidis C, editor. HCI International 2017 – Posters' Extended Abstracts Communications in Computer Information Science Cham: Springer International Publishing. p. 638–644.

33. Hong JS, Kim DH, Thornberg R, Kang JH, Morgan JT. Correlates of direct and indirect forms of cyberbullying victimization involving South Korean adolescents: an ecological perspective. Comput Hum Behav. (2018) 87:327–36. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.010

34. Lee C, Shin N. Prevalence of cyberbullying and predictors of cyberbullying perpetration among Korean adolescents. Comp Hum Behav. (2017) 68:352–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.047

35. You S, Lim SA. Longitudinal predictors of cyberbullying perpetration: evidence from Korean middle school students. Person Ind Differ. (2016) 89:172–6. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.019

36. Holt TJ, Fitzgerald S, Bossler AM, Chee G, Ng E. Assessing the risk factors of cyber and mobile phone bullying victimization in a nationally representative sample of Singapore Youth. Int J Offend Ther Comp Criminol. (2016) 60:598–615. doi: 10.1177/0306624X14554852

37. Marret MJ, Choo WY. Factors associated with online victimisation among Malaysian adolescents who use social networking sites: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. (2017) 7:e014959. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014959

38. Tesler R, Nissanholtz-Gannot R, Zigdon A, Harel-Fisch Y. The association of cyber-bullying and adolescents in religious and secular schools in Israel. J Relig Health. (2019) 58:2095–109. doi: 10.1007/s10943-019-00938-z

39. Beran T, Mishna F, McInroy LB, Shariff S. Children's experiences of cyberbullying: a Canadian National Study. Child School. (2015) 37:207–14. doi: 10.1093/cs/cdv024

40. World Bank Country and Lending Groups – World Bank Data Help Desk. Available online at: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups [accessed January 25, 2021).

41. Marco JH, Tormo-Irun P. Cyber victimization is associated with eating disorder psychopathology in adolescents. Front Psychol. (2018) 9:987. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00987

42. Olenik-Shemesh D, Heiman T. Cyberbullying victimization in adolescents as related to body esteem, social support, and social self-efficacy. J Genet Psychol. (2017) 178:28–43. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2016.1195331

43. Rao J, Wang H, Pang M, Yang J, Zhang J, Ye Y, et al. Cyberbullying perpetration and victimisation among junior and senior high school students in Guangzhou, China. Inj Prev. (2019) 25:13–9. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042210

44. Lee C. Weak Commitment to School, Deviant Peers, and Cyberbullying Victimization-Strain in Adolescent Cyberbullying . (2017). Available online at: https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1937915933/abstract/9D85437600564444PQ/30 (accessed June 17, 2020).

45. Lin MT. Risk factors associated with cyberbullying victimization and perpetration among Taiwan children (dissertation). The University of Texas, Austin, TX, United States (2019).

46. Pieschl S, Porsch T. The complex relationship between cyberbullying and trust. Int J Dev Sci. (2017) 11:9–17. doi: 10.3233/DEV-160208

47. Brighi A, Menin D, Skrzypiec G, Guarini A. Young, bullying, and connected. Common pathways to cyberbullying and problematic internet use in adolescence. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1467. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01467

48. Festl R. Perpetrators on the internet: analyzing individual and structural explanation factors of cyberbullying in school context. Comp Hum Behav. (2016) 59:237–48. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.017

49. Olumide AO, Adams P, Amodu OK. Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyberbullying among in-school adolescents in Oyo State, Nigeria. Int J Adolesc Med Health. (2016) 28:183–91. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2015-0009

50. Baldry AC, Sorrentino A, Farrington DP. Cyberbullying and cybervictimization versus parental supervision, monitoring and control of adolescents' online activities. Child Youth Serv Rev. (2019) 96:302–7. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.058

51. Garaigordobil M. Cyberbullying in adolescents and youth in the Basque Country: prevalence of cybervictims, cyberaggressors, and cyberobservers. J Youth Stud. (2015) 18:569–82. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2014.992324

52. Morin HK, Bradshaw CP, Kush JM. Adjustment outcomes of victims of cyberbullying: the role of personal and contextual factors. J School Psychol. (2018) 70:74–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2018.07.002

53. Baraldsnes D. The prevalence of cyberbullying and the views of 5-12 grade pupils and teachers on cyberbullying prevention in Lithuanian Schools. Uinv J Educ Res. (2015) 3:949–59. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2015.031201

54. Razjouyan K, Mobarake AH, Sadr SS, Ardestani SMS, Yaseri M. The relationship between emotional intelligence and the different roles in cyberbullying among high school students in Tehran. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. (2018) 12:UNSP e11560. doi: 10.5812/ijpbs.11560

55. Alvarez-Garcia D, Carlos Nunez J, Garcia T, Barreiro-Collazo A. Individual, family, and community predictors of cyber-aggression among adolescents. Eur J Psychol Appl Legal Context. (2018) 10:79–88. doi: 10.5093/ejpalc2018a8

56. Horzum MB, Ayas T, Randler C, Dusunceli B. The effects of empathy and circadian preference on cyberbullying of adolescents in Turkey. Biol Rhythm Res . (2019). doi: 10.1080/09291016.2019.1603839

57. Carmen Martinez-Monteagudo M, Delgado B, Manuel Garcia-Fernandez J, Rubio E. Cyberbullying, aggressiveness, and emotional intelligence in adolescence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:5079. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16245079

58. Sasson H, Mesch G. The role of parental mediation and peer norms on the likelihood of cyberbullying. J Genet Psychol. (2017) 178:15–27. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2016.1195330

59. Wang X, Lei L, Liu D, Hu H. Moderating effects of moral reasoning and gender on the relation between moral disengagement and cyberbullying in adolescents. Person Ind Differ. (2016) 98:244–9. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.056

60. Simsek N, Sahin D, Evli M. Internet addiction, cyberbullying, and victimization relationship in adolescents a sample from Turkey. J Addict Nurs. (2019) 30:201–10. doi: 10.1097/JAN.0000000000000296

61. McQuillan BE. Ecological Factors Associated with Middle School Students' Experiences of Cyberbullying . (2016). Available online at: https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1794167537/abstract/9D85437600564444PQ/4 (accessed June 17, 2020).

62. Rose CA, Tynes BM. Longitudinal associations between cybervictimization and mental health among U.S. adolescents. J Adolesc Health. (2015) 57:305–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.05.002

63. Stockdale LA, Coyne SM, Nelson DA, Erickson DH. Borderline personality disorder features, jealousy, and cyberbullying in adolescence. Pers Individ Differ. (2015) 83:148–53. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.003

64. Chen Q, Lo Camilla KM, Yuhong Z, Anne C, Ling CK, Patrick I. Family poly-victimization and cyberbullying among adolescents in a Chinese school sample. Child Abuse Negl. (2018) 77:180–7. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.015

65. Landoll RR, La Greca AM, Lai BS, Chan SF, Herge WM. Cyber victimization by peers: prospective associations with adolescent social anxiety and depressive symptoms. J Adolesc. (2015) 42:77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.002

66. Iranzo B, Buelga S, Cava M-J, Ortega-Baron J. Cyberbullying, psychosocial adjustment, and suicidal ideation in adolescence. Psychosoc Interv. (2019) 28:75–81. doi: 10.5093/pi2019a5

67. Buelga S, Cava MJ, Musitu G, Torralba E. Cyberbullying aggressors among Spanish secondary education students: an exploratory study. Interact Tech Smart Ed. (2015) 12:100–15. doi: 10.1108/ITSE-08-2014-0025

68. Katz I, Lemish D, Cohen R, Arden A. When parents are inconsistent: parenting style and adolescents' involvement in cyberbullying. J Adolesc. (2019) 74:1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.04.006

69. Cénat JM, Blais M, Lavoie F, Caron P-O, Hébert M. Cyberbullying victimization and substance use among Quebec high schools students: the mediating role of psychological distress. Comp Hum Behav. (2018) 89:207–12. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.014

70. Hoareau N, Bages C, Allaire M, Guerrien A. The role of psychopathic traits and moral disengagement in cyberbullying among adolescents. Crim Behav Ment Health. (2019) 29:321–31. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2135

71. Khurana A, Bleakley A, Jordan A, Romer D. The protective effects of parental monitoring and internet restriction on adolescents' risk of online harassment. J Youth Adolesc. (2015) 44:1039–47. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0242-4

72. Martínez I, Murgui S, Garcia OF, Garcia F. Parenting in the digital era: protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Comp Hum Behav. (2019) 90:84–92. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.036

73. Yusuf S, Salleh H, Bahaman A, Shamsul M, Ramli N, Ramli AN, et al. Parental attachment and cyberbullying experiences among Malaysian children. Pertanika J Scholarly Res Rev . (2018) 4:67–80.

74. Martinez-Ferrer B, Leon-Moreno C, Musitu-Ferrer D, Romero-Abrio A, Callejas-Jeronimo JE, Musitu-Ochoa G. Parental socialization, school adjustment and cyber-aggression among adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:4005. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16204005

75. Moreno–Ruiz D, Martínez–Ferrer B, García–Bacete F. Parenting styles, cyberaggression, and cybervictimization among adolescents. Comp Hum Behav. (2019) 93:252–9. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.031

76. Ho SS, Chen L, Ng APY. Comparing cyberbullying perpetration on social media between primary and secondary school students. Comp Educ. (2017) 109:74–84. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.004

77. Gómez-Ortiz O, Romera EM, Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R. Parenting practices as risk or preventive factors for adolescent involvement in cyberbullying: contribution of children and parent gender. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15:2664. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122664

78. Wright MF, Kamble SV, Soudi SP. Indian adolescents' cyber aggression involvement and cultural values: the moderation of peer attachment. Sch Psychol Int. (2015) 36:410–27. doi: 10.1177/0143034315584696

79. Holfeld B, Leadbeater BJ. Concurrent and longitudinal associations between early adolescents' experiences of school climate and cyber victimization. Comput Hum Behav. (2017) 76:321–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.037

80. Álvarez-García D, Núñez JC, González-Castro P, Rodríguez C, Cerezo R. The effect of parental control on cyber-victimization in adolescence: the mediating role of impulsivity and high-risk behaviors. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1159. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01159

81. Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, Runions KC. Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. J Adolesc Health. (2014) 55:602–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007

82. Hamm MP, Newton AS, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Sundar P, et al. Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: a scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatr. (2015) 169:770. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944

83. Gaffney H, Farrington DP, Espelage DL, Ttofi MM. Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggress Violent Behav. (2019) 45:134–53. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.002

84. Selkie EM, Fales JL, Moreno MA. Cyberbullying prevalence among US middle and high school-aged adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment. J Adolesc Health. (2016) 58:125–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.026

85. Ybarra ML, Boyd D, Korchmaros JD, Oppenheim J. Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. J Adolesc Health. (2012) 51:53–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.031

86. Kowalski RM, Limber SP, McCord A. A developmental approach to cyberbullying: prevalence and protective factors. Aggress Violent Behav. (2019) 45:20–32. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.009

87. Dilmac B, Yurt E, Aydin M, Kasarci I. Predictive relationship between humane values of adolescents cyberbullying and cyberbullying sensibility. Electron J Res Educ Psychol. (2016) 14:3–22. doi: 10.14204/ejrep.38.14123

88. Reed KP, Cooper RL, Nugent WR, Russell K. Cyberbullying: a literature review of its relationship to adolescent depression and current intervention strategies. J Hum Behav Soc Environ. (2016) 26:37–45. doi: 10.1080/10911359.2015.1059165

Keywords: cyberbullying, children, adolescents, globalization, risk factors, preventive measures

Citation: Zhu C, Huang S, Evans R and Zhang W (2021) Cyberbullying Among Adolescents and Children: A Comprehensive Review of the Global Situation, Risk Factors, and Preventive Measures. Front. Public Health 9:634909. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909

Received: 29 November 2020; Accepted: 10 February 2021; Published: 11 March 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Zhu, Huang, Evans and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Wei Zhang, weizhanghust@hust.edu.cn

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Negative Effects of Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying devastates people of all ages. explore the effects of cyberbullying with kent state’s online ma in criminology and criminal justice..

In a culture ever more dependent on technology and the internet—for education , work, entertainment, and connection to our communities—it should come as no surprise that people behave online much as we do in person: with a mixture of kindness and cruelty, combining the best and worst of human intentions.

The worst are often expressed through cyberbullying, which a leading national organization committed to fighting it describes as “online harassment … social terror by technology.” 1 Read on to explore this digital-age development and several negative effects of cyberbullying.

Bullying and Cyberbullying

On its website, the American Society for the Positive Care of Children (ASPCC) defines bullying as “repetitious, unwanted, aggressive behavior that involves a real or perceived power imbalance.” 2 The site notes that, like bullying, cyberbullying can take many forms, but all instances of cyberbullying include repeated aggressive behavior (“rumors, embarrassing pictures, harassing messages, fake profiles and other aggressive behavior”) online or on a digital platform—such as text message, email, social media, video games, websites and online chat. A cyberbully may pretend to be another person online in order to harass others. Perpetrators spread lies, trick people into revealing personal information, send or forward hostile messages and post pictures of victims without their consent. 3

While similar to face-to-face means of bullying, cyberbullying differs from them in several important ways: 4

• It doesn’t stop when the victim is in the safety of his or her own home. Cyberbullying can be relentless, prohibiting any escape for the victim.
• A child who is bullied at school or on the playground knows who the perpetrator is, and there are adults nearby who can provide help. In contrast, cyberbullying takes place where there are no responsible protectors or moderators.
• The anonymity made possible by technology often leaves the victim feeling that s/he has no recourse. Anonymity reduces cyberbullies’ empathy for their victims and allows them to continue attacking, and social media websites often provide opportunities for them to do so. Private group chats or pages of which the bullies’ scapegoat is unaware, for example, can enable bullies to victimize their targets. When the chats and pages are made public, the targeted individual—whether child or adult—faces an onslaught of paranoia, embarrassment and feelings of isolation. Text messages and group chats can be used to the same ends. Gaming and other hobbyist forums also turn into cyberbullying arenas. One of the largest and most visited social websites in operation today is set up so that its users are nearly completely anonymous.

According to StopBullying.gov, a child who is cyberbullied is likely to be bullied at school, as well. Children who are bullied are more likely than their non-bullied peers to miss, skip or drop out of school; those who stay in school are more likely to suffer academically, with decreased grade point averages, standardized test scores and class participation. 5

Research shows that the many negative consequences sustained by victims of cyberbullying include: 2

• Increased suicide attempts
• Higher rates of depression and anxiety
• Reduced feelings of self-worth
• Difficulty sleeping
• Increased instances of bed-wetting
• Increased physical issues such as headaches and stomachaches
• Increased instances of eating disorders, which are specifically found to be more prevalent in girls involved in bullying relationships

Some bullied children have retaliated violently. In 12 of 15 school shooting cases in the 1990s, for example, the shooters had been bullied themselves. 5

Bullying does not solely harm those who are targeted. StopBullying.gov notes that perpetrators are more likely to: 5

• Get into fights
• Vandalize property
• Drop out of school
• Engage in early sexual activity
• Abuse alcohol and other drugs in adolescence and adulthood
• Have criminal convictions and traffic citations as adults
• Be abusive toward their intimate partners, spouses or children as adults

Cyberbullying Among College and University Students

Sometimes referred to as electronic victimization, cyberbullying remains under-recognized when perpetrated between college students . It’s not a surprising occurrence in that context, however, as college students are among the most frequent users of digital technology.

Cyberbullying in college has notably included electronic criticisms of identity, sexual harassment, and “outing” of private information such as sexual orientation or health diagnoses (such as psychiatric conditions or sexually transmitted infections) without consent. 6

We don’t tend to describe the actions of legal adults as bullying, but harassment, hazing, intimidation, stalking and other forms of online aggression between college students have had shattering consequences. Among them: 7

• In 2014, University of Wisconsin-River Falls straight-A student Alyssa Funke took her own life after enduring harassment online after it was revealed that she had appeared in an adult video
• In 2010, Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge after he learned that his roommate and a friend had secretly recorded an intimate encounter he had with another man (and posted about it online)

In 2019, the National Center for Biotechnology Information published the article “Cyberbullying and Its Influence on Academic, Social, and Emotional Development of Undergraduate Students” by Dr. Yehuda Peled. It noted these effects of cyberbullying among college students:

“Victims generally manifest psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, loneliness, low self-esteem, social exclusion, school phobias and poor academic performance, family problems, school violence and delinquent behavior, which brings them to experience suicidal thoughts as a means of escaping the torture.

Moreover, research findings have shown that cyberbullying causes emotional and physiological damage to defenseless victims as well as psychosocial problems including inappropriate behaviors, drinking alcohol, smoking, depression and low commitment to academics.

The victims of cyberbullying, under great emotional stress, are unable to concentrate on their studies, and thus their academic progress is adversely affected. Since the victims are often hurt psychologically, the depressive effect of cyberbullying prevents students from excelling in their studies.” 8

Cyberbullying of Adults

While it’s easy to think of cyberbullying as something that only happens to children and students—solely an online extension of playground abuse—adults are experiencing it in frightening numbers.

In September 2020, the Pew Research Center surveyed adults in the United States to measure their experience with six key forms of online harassment. The study 9 found that 41% of Americans have personally experienced cyberbullying in at least one of these forms: physical threats, stalking, sustained harassment, sexual harassment, offensive name-calling and purposeful embarrassment. Of those six, the first four are regarded as the more severe, and 25% of those adults surveyed reported experiencing at least one of them. That response is up from 15% in 2014 and 18% in 2017. Further, those who have been the target of cyberbullying are more likely today than in 2017 to report that their most recent experience involved more varied types and more severe forms of it.

Cyberbullying can be as harmful, if not more so, to adults as it is to children and college students. The Cybersmile Foundation, an award-winning nonprofit organization committed to digital wellbeing and tackling bullying and abuse online, states on its website that the impact of “an internet-based, adult hate campaign can be devastating—cyberbullying, reputation attacks and harassment online have all seen lives lost, careers and businesses damaged, social and professional reputations destroyed, and entire families broken beyond repair.” 10 To illustrate this point, the site links to an article about Leanne Morrison, a 23-year-old mother who committed suicide after facing “vicious online abuse;” 11 another that addresses the impact of cyber attacks on corporate reputations; and a third documenting one mother’s struggle against months of online attacks from her ex and the suicidal depression to which they drove her.

Join the fight for justice

The Cybersmile Foundation, StopBullying.gov, STOMP Out Bullying™ and other organizations are working to make life online safe and productive for everyone. Their efforts are most effective in combination with those of a fair, equitable justice system, and your expertise can strengthen that.

Prepare to design policies and procedures in the fields of cybersecurity, policing, criminal justice, and homeland security. The Kent State online Master of Arts in Criminology and Criminal Justice program offers concentrations in Policing, Corrections, Victimology, and Global Security. To learn more, talk with one of our Admissions Advisors , and then start your application today.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Teens and Video Games Today

85% of u.s. teens say they play video games, and about four-in-ten do so daily. teens see both positive and negative sides of video games – from problem-solving and making friends to harassment and sleep loss, table of contents.

• Who plays video games?
• How often do teens play video games?
• What devices do teens play video games on?
• Social media use among gamers
• Teen views on how much they play video games and efforts to cut back
• Are teens social with others through video games?
• Do teens think video games positively or negatively impact their lives?
• Why do teens play video games?
• Bullying and violence in video games
• Appendix A: Detailed charts
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand teens’ use of and experiences with video games.

The Center conducted an online survey of 1,453 U.S. teens from Sept. 26 to Oct. 23, 2023, through Ipsos. Ipsos recruited the teens via their parents, who were part of its KnowledgePanel . The KnowledgePanel is a probability-based web panel recruited primarily through national, random sampling of residential addresses. The survey was weighted to be representative of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 who live with their parents by age, gender, race and ethnicity, household income, and other categories.

This research was reviewed and approved by an external institutional review board (IRB), Advarra, an independent committee of experts specializing in helping to protect the rights of research participants.

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and  its methodology .

There are long-standing debates about the impact of video games on youth. Some credit them for helping young people form friendships and teaching them about teamwork and problem-solving . Others say video games expose teenagers to violent content, negatively impact their sleep and can even lead to addiction.

With this in mind, Pew Research Center surveyed 1,423 U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 about their own video game habits – from how often they play to the friends they’ve made and whether it gets in the way of them doing well in school or getting a good night’s sleep. 1

Key findings from the survey

• Video games as a part of daily teen life: 85% of U.S. teens report playing video games, and 41% say they play them at least once a day. Four-in-ten identify as a gamer.
• Gaming as a social experience: 72% of teens who play video games say that a reason why they play them is to spend time with others. And some have even made a friend online from playing them – 47% of teen video game players say they’ve done this.
• Helpful with problem-solving, less so for sleep: Over half of teens who play video games say it has helped their problem-solving skills, but 41% also say it has hurt their sleep.
• Bullying is a problem: 80% of all teens think harassment over video games is a problem for people their age. And 41% of those who play them say they’ve been called an offensive name when playing.
• Boys’ and girls’ experiences differ: Most teen boys and girls play video games, but larger shares of boys identify as gamers (62% vs. 17%) and play every day (61% vs. 22%). Boys who play them are also more likely to experience positive things from it, like making friends, and more troubling things like harassment.

Jump to read about: Who plays video games | Socializing over video games | Views about video games’ impact | Harassment and violence in video games      

Playing video games is widespread among teens. The vast majority of U.S. teens (85%) say they play them. Just 15% say they never do, according to the survey conducted Sept. 26-Oct. 23, 2023.

In addition to asking whether teens play video games, we also wanted to learn whether they consider themselves gamers. Overall, four-in-ten U.S. teens think of themselves as gamers. Just under half of teens (45%) play video games but do not think of themselves as gamers.

Nearly all boys (97%) say they play video games, compared with about three-quarters of teen girls. There is a substantial gap by gender in whether teens identify as gamers: 62% of teen boys do, compared with 17% of girls. 2

By gender and age

Younger teen girls are more likely than older girls to say they play video games: 81% of girls ages 13 to 14 compared with 67% of those ages 15 to 17. But among boys, nearly all play video games regardless of age. 

Similar shares of teens play video games across different racial and ethnic groups and among those who live in households with different annual incomes. Go to Appendix A for more detail on which teens play video games and which teens identify as gamers.

We also asked teens how often they play video games. About four-in-ten U.S. teens say they play video games daily, including 23% who do so several times a day.

Another 22% say they play several times a week, while 21% play them about once a week or less.

Teen boys are far more likely than girls to say they play video games daily (61% vs. 22%). They are also much more likely to say they play them several times a day (36% vs. 11%).

By whether someone identifies as a gamer

About seven-in-ten teens who identify as gamers (71%) say they play video games daily. This drops to 30% among those who play them but aren’t gamers.

By household income

Roughly half of teens living in households with an annual income of less than $30,000 (53%) say they play video games at least daily. This is higher than those in households with an annual income of $30,000 to $74,999 (42%) and $75,000 or more (39%).

Go to Appendix A to see more details about who plays video games and identifies as a gamer by gender, age, race and ethnicity, and household income.

Most teens play video games on a gaming console or a smartphone. When asked about five devices, most teens report playing video games on a gaming console (73%), such as PlayStation, Switch or Xbox. And 70% do so on a smartphone. Fewer – though still sizable shares – play them on each of the following:

• 49% say they play them on a desktop or laptop computer
• 33% do so on a tablet  
• 24% play them on a virtual reality (VR) headset such as Oculus, Meta Quest or PlayStation VR

Many teens play video games on multiple devices. About a quarter of teens (27%) do so on at least four of the five devices asked about, and about half (49%) play on two or three of them. Just 8% play video games on one device.

Teen boys are more likely than girls to play video games on four of the five devices asked about – all expect tablets. For instance, roughly nine-in-ten teen boys say they ever play video games on a gaming console, compared with 57% of girls. Equal shares of teen boys and girls play them on tablets.  

Teens who consider themselves gamers are more likely than those who play video games but aren’t gamers to play on a gaming console (95% vs. 78%), desktop or laptop computer (72% vs. 45%) or a virtual reality (VR) headset (39% vs. 19%). Similar shares of both groups play them on smartphones and tablets.

One way that teens engage with others about video games is through online platforms. And our survey findings show that teen gamers stand out for their use of two online platforms that are known for their gaming communities – Discord and Twitch :

• 44% of teen gamers say they use Discord, far higher than video game players who don’t identify as gamers or those who use the platform but do not play video games at all. About three-in-ten teens overall (28%) use Discord.
• 30% of teens gamers say they use Twitch. About one-in-ten other teens or fewer say the same; 17% of teens overall use the platform.

Previous Center research shows that U.S. teens use online platforms at high rates .

Teens largely say they spend the right amount of time playing video games. When asked about how much time they spend playing them, the largest share of teens (58%) say they spend the right amount of time. Far fewer feel they spend too much (14%) or too little (13%) time playing them.

Teen boys are more likely than girls to say they spend too much time playing video games (22% vs. 6%).

By race and ethnicity

Black (17%) and Hispanic (18%) teens are about twice as likely than White teens (8%) to say they spend too little time playing video games. 3

A quarter of teens who consider themselves gamers say they spend too much time playing video games, compared with 9% of those who play video games but don’t identify as gamers. Teen gamers are also less likely to think they spend too little time playing them (19% vs. 10%).

Fewer than half of teens have reduced how much they play video games. About four-in-ten (38%) say they have ever chosen to cut back on the amount of time they spend playing them. A majority (61%) report that they have not cut back at all.

This share is on par with findings about whether teenagers have cut back with their screen time – on social media or their smartphone.

Although boys are more likely to say they play video games too much, boys and girls are on par for whether they have ever cut back. About four-in-ten teen boys (39%) and girls (38%) say that they have ever cut back.

And gamers are as likely to say they have cut back as those who play video games but don’t identify as gamers (39% and 41%).

A main goal of our survey was to ask teens about their own experiences playing video games. For this section of the report, we focus on teens who say they play video games.

Socializing with others is a key part of the video game experience. Most teens who play video games do so with others, and some have developed friendships through them.

About nine-in-ten teen video game players (89%) say they play them with other people, in person or online. Far fewer (11%) play them only on their own.

Additionally, about half (47%) report that they have ever made a friend online because of a video game they both play. This equals 40% of all U.S. teens who have made a friend online because of a video game.

These experiences vary by:  

• Gender: Most teen boy and girl video game players play them with others, though it’s more common among boys (94% vs. 82%). Boys who play video games are much more likely to say they have made a friend online because of a video game (56% vs. 35%).
• Race and ethnicity: Black (55%) and Hispanic (53%) teen video game players are more likely than White teen video game players (43%) to say they have made a friend online because of them.
• Whether someone identifies as a gamer: Nearly all teen gamers report playing video games with others (98%). Fewer – though still most – of those who play video games but aren’t gamers (81%) also play them with others. And about seven-in-ten (68%) say they have made a friend online because of a video game, compared with 29% of those who play them but don’t identify as gamers.

Teens who play video games are particularly likely to say video games help their problem-solving skills. More than half of teens who play video games (56%) say this.

Additionally, more think that video games help, rather than hurt, three other parts of their lives that the survey asked about. Among teens who play video games:

• Roughly half (47%) say it has helped their friendships
• 41% say it has helped how they work with others
• 32% say it has helped their mental health

No more than 7% say playing video games has hurt any of these.

More teens who play video games say it hurts, rather than helps, their sleep. Among these teens, 41% say it has hurt how much sleep they get, while just 5% say it helps. And small shares say playing video games has impacted how well they do in school in either a positive or a negative way.

Still, many teens who play video games think playing them doesn’t have much an impact in any of these areas. For instance, at least six-in-ten teens who play video games say it has neither a positive nor a negative impact on their mental health (60%) or their school performance (72%). Fewer (41%) say this of their problem-solving skills.

Teen boys who play video games are more likely than girls to think playing them has helped their problem-solving skills, friendships and ability to work with others. For instance, 55% of teen boys who play video games say this has helped their friendships, compared with 35% of teen girls.

As for ways that it may hurt their lives, boys who play them are more likely than girls to say that it has hurt the amount of sleep they get (45% vs. 37%) and how well they do in school (21% vs. 11%). 

Teens who consider themselves gamers are more likely than those who aren’t gamers but play video games to say video games have helped their friendships (60% vs. 35%), ability to work with others (52% vs. 32%), problem-solving skills (66% vs. 47%) and mental health (41% vs. 24%).

Gamers, though, are somewhat more likely to say playing them hurt their sleep (48% vs. 36%) and how well they do in school (20% vs. 14%).

By whether teens play too much, too little or the right amount

Teens who report playing video games too much stand out for thinking video games have hurt their sleep and school performance. Two-thirds of these teens say it has hurt the amount of sleep they get, and 39% say it hurt their schoolwork. Far fewer of those who say they play the right amount (38%) or too little (32%) say it has hurt their sleep, or say it hurt their schoolwork (12% and 16%).

Teens who play video games say they largely do so to be entertained. And many also play them to be social with and interact with others. Teens who play video games were asked about four reasons why they play video games. Among those who play video games:

• Nearly all say fun or entertainment is a major or minor reason why they play video games – with a large majority (87%) saying it’s a major reason.
• Roughly three-quarters say spending time with others is a reason, and two-thirds say this of competing with others. Roughly three-in-ten say each is a major reason.
• Fewer – 50% – see learning something as a reason, with just 13% saying it’s a major reason.

While entertainment is by far the most common reason given by teens who play video games, differences emerge across groups in why they play video games.

Teens who identify as gamers are particularly likely to say each is major reason, especially when it comes to competing against others. About four-in-ten gamers (43%) say this is a major reason, compared with 13% of those who play video games but aren’t gamers.

Teen boys who play video games are more likely than girls to say competing (36% vs. 15%), spending time with others (36% vs. 27%) and entertainment (90% vs. 83%) are major reasons they play video games.

Black and Hispanic teens who play video games are more likely than White teens to say that learning new things and competing against others are major reasons they play them. For instance, 29% of Black teen video game players say learning something new is a major reason, higher than 17% of Hispanic teen video game players. Both are higher than the 7% of White teen video game players who say the same.

Teens who play video games and live in lower-income households are especially likely to say competing against others and learning new things are major reasons. For instance, four-in-ten teen video game players who live in households with an annual income of less than $30,000 say competing against others is a major reason they play. This is higher than among those in households with annual incomes of $30,000 to $74,999 (29%) and $75,000 or more (23%).

Cyberbullying can happen in many online environments, but many teens encounter this in the video game world.

Our survey finds that name-calling is a relatively common feature of video game life – especially for boys. Roughly four-in-ten teen video game players (43%) say they have been harassed or bullied while playing a video game in one of three ways: 

• 41% have been called an offensive name
• 12% have been physically threatened
• 8% have been sent unwanted sexually explicit things

Teen boys are particularly likely to say they have been called an offensive name. About half of teen boys who play video games (48%) say this has happened while playing them, compared with about a third of girls (32%). And they are somewhat more likely than girls to have been physically threatened (15% vs. 9%).

Teen gamers are more likely than those who play video games but aren’t gamers to say they been called and offensive name (53% vs. 30%), been physically threatened (17% vs. 8%) and sent unwanted sexually explicit things (10% vs. 6%).

Teens – regardless of whether they’ve had these experiences – think bullying is a problem in gaming. Eight-in-ten U.S. teens say that when it comes to video games, harassment and bullying is a problem for people their age. This includes 29% who say it is a major problem.

It’s common for teens to think harassment while playing video games is a problem, but girls are somewhat more likely than boys to say it’s a major problem (33% vs. 25%).

There have also been decades-long debates about how violent video games can influence youth behavior , if at all – such as by encouraging or desensitizing them to violence. We wanted to get a sense of how commonly violence shows up in the video games teens are playing.

Just over half of teens who play video games (56%) say at least some of the games they play contain violence. This includes 16% who say it’s in all or most of the games they play.

Teen boys who play video games are far more likely than girls to say that at least some of the games they play contain violence (69% vs. 37%).

About three-quarters of teen gamers (73%) say that at least some of the games they play contain violence, compared with 40% among video game players who aren’t gamers.   

• Throughout this report, “teens” refers to those ages 13 to 17. ↩
• Previous Center research of U.S. adults shows that men are more likely than women to identify as gamers – especially the youngest adults. ↩
• There were not enough Asian American respondents in the sample to be broken out into a separate analysis. As always, their responses are incorporated into the general population figures throughout the report. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Friendships
• Online Harassment & Bullying
• Teens & Tech
• Teens & Youth

How Teens and Parents Approach Screen Time

Teens and internet, device access fact sheet, teens and social media fact sheet, teens, social media and technology 2023, what the data says about americans’ views of artificial intelligence, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Watch CBS News

Video games help and harm U.S. teens — leading to both friendships and bullying, Pew survey says

By Cara Tabachnick

May 9, 2024 / 8:00 AM EDT / CBS News

Video games are where U.S. teens form friendships — but also where a majority say they experience bullying and name-calling, a Pew survey released Thursday found.

More than 1,400 teens from ages 13-17 participated in the survey last fall, answering questions on various aspects of  their relationship with video games . Some of the results are to be expected. For instance, a large majority of teens in the U.S. — more than 85% — play video games.

But other topics weren't so clear cut and painted a more complex picture of how teens viewed their experience. Survey participants reported video games were how they had fun and made friends, despite also reporting bullying, harassment and name-calling. But even with those issues, they still wanted to continue playing, saying gaming also helped them with their problem-solving skills and even their mental health. 

Most teens said they play video games for fun or "entertainment reasons," with around three-quarters saying they play to spend time with others. They said they don't see the games as harmful to themselves or their lifestyle, even though 40% said it hurt their sleep. 

Some 58% of respondents said they felt they played the right amount of video games. 

There were also stark differences in how different genders said they respond to and engage with video games.

Teen boys play video games far more often than girls — and almost two-thirds play them daily — with the activity making up a large portion of their social lives. More than half of the teen boys said video games helped them make friends, compared to 35% of girls surveyed. 

Black and Latino teens said they made friends at a higher rate than White teens, and the numbers jumped even higher for those who considered themselves gamers. 

Even with all the friendships made, about half of teen boys said they've been called offensive names while playing, with about a third of girls reporting the same. Eight in 10 said that bullying is an issue in video games and about one-third of the teens surveyed said it's a major problem.

Cara Tabachnick is a news editor and journalist at CBSNews.com. Cara began her career on the crime beat at Newsday. She has written for Marie Claire, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. She reports on justice and human rights issues. Contact her at [email protected]

More from CBS News

Video footage shows aftermath of Florida bus crash that killed at least 8

Maui fires left victims food insecure and with health issues, survey finds

Body believed to be missing Tampa mom found

Zayn Malik says he was kicked off Tinder