Defining Bullying and Cyberbullying According to the Scientific Community: A Mixed Method Study
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Bullying has been studied for over 50 years, and research on the topic has been extremely fruitful. Nevertheless, there are still important inconsistencies in definitions used in research on bullying and cyberbullying, which negatively impact research, policy and practice. Among other problems, varying definitions can cause underreporting and overreporting of bullying in different contexts. Thus, the current mixed-methods study was conducted to propose definitions of bullying and cyberbullying based on the opinion of the scientific community in the field worldwide. The study included 149 bullying and cyberbullying researchers from 36 different countries. Proposed definitions are based on a qualitative free definition provided by the participants and a quantitative part focused on different elements of the definitions. Based on our findings, we propose that bullying could be defined as a repeated violent behaviour perpetrated with an intention to harm, that causes physical, social or emotional harm to a victim who cannot defend themselves given an imbalance of power. There are bullying roles such as victims, perpetrators and bystanders. Cyberbullying could be defined as bullying perpetrated through electronic devices, within a social network by known and unknown people. These definitions are useful to guide bullying research, policy and practice.
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?
Efforts to establish a universal cyberbullying definition have largely relied on deductive, theory-driven approaches or consensus-based approaches involving cyberbullying researchers.
“Efforts to establish a universal cyberbullying definition have largely relied on deductive, theory-driven approaches (18, 43), or on consensus-based approaches involving cyberbullying researchers (53).”
From A thematic analysis of adolescents’ perceptions of cyberbullying and cyberaggression: definitional distinctions and educational gaps (2026) · cites this paper as [53]
Cites
Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2016) · Journal of Youth and Adolescence · doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0259-3 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Menin, D., Guarini, A., Mameli, C., Skrzypiec, G., & Brighi, A. (2021) · International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2021.100221 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Green, D. M., Taddeo, C. M., Price, D. A., Pasenidou, F., & Spears, B. A. (2022) · International Journal of Bullying Prevention · doi:10.1007/s42380-022-00118-w · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Smith, E. J., Rai, R., Scase, M. O., & Wilson, A. D. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1746672
- Authors
- Zych, I., & Farrington, D. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Córdoba (ES)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Zych, Izabela
- Venue
- International Journal of Bullying Prevention
- Published
- 2026-02-14
- ISSN
- 2523-3653 (ISSN-L)
- 2523-3661
- OpenAlex
- W7128907942
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10
- FWCI
- 82.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Bullying Prevention (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Universidad de Córdoba
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- bullying, cyberbullying, definition of bullying, power imbalance, victimization, bullying perpetrators, bystanders, social networks, electronic devices
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