Cross‐cultural similarities and differences in the theoretical predictors of cyberbullying perpetration: Results from a seven‐country study
Abstract
The Barlett Gentile cyberbullying model (BGCM) posits that correlated anonymity perceptions and the belief in the irrelevance of muscularity for online bullying (BIMOB) predict positive cyberbullying attitudes to predict subsequent cyberbullying perpetration. Much research has shown the BGCM to be the only published theory that differentiates traditional and cyberbullying while validly predicting cyberbullying. So far, however, the cross‐cultural ubiquity has gone understudied. Thus, 1,592 adult participants across seven countries (USA, Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, Japan, and Singapore) completed measures germane to the BGCM. Supporting the BGCM, the variables were significantly correlated for the entire sample, participants from independent cultures, and participants from interdependent cultures. However, the relationship between BIMOB and positive cyberbullying attitudes as well as the relationship between positive cyberbullying attitudes and cyberbullying perpetration were stronger for independent cultures. These results suggest that the BGCM postulates are mostly universal, but several relations appear to be culturally different. Theoretical implications are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Barlett Gentile cyberbullying model (BGCM) is a robust framework for predicting cyberbullying behaviors and attitudes across diverse cultural contexts.
“The Barlett Gentile cyberbullying model (BGCM) has been identified as a robust framework for predicting cyberbullying behaviors and attitudes across diverse cultural contexts [138].”
From Cyberbullying detection: Exploring datasets, technologies, and approaches on social media platforms (2026) · cites this paper as [138]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 39
- Authors
- Barlett, C. P., Seyfert, L. W., Simmers, M. M., Hsueh Hua Chen, V., Cavalcanti, J. G., Krahé, B., Suzuki, K., Warburton, W. A., Wong, R. Y. M., Pimentel, C. E., & Skowronski, M.
- Affiliations
- Gettysburg College (US)
- Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information Nanyang Technological University Singapore
- Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) (BR)
- University of Potsdam (DE)
- University of Tsukuba (JP)
- Macquarie University (AU)
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Department of Psychology Federal University of Paraiba Brazil
- Corresponding author
- Barlett, Christopher P.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Aggressive Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-08-27
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 111-119
- ISSN
- 0096-140X (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2337
- OpenAlex
- W3081626303
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5
- FWCI
- 6.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Aggressive Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
- publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
- Keywords
- cyberbullying perpetration, cross-cultural comparison, cyberbullying
- MeSH terms
- Cyberbullying, Adult, Australia, China, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Germany, Humans, Japan, Crime Victims, Bullying
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review