Risk factors for juvenile cybercrime: A meta-analytic review
Open accessAbstract
So far, most meta-analyses and reviews on juvenile crime risk factors focused on risk factors for traditional crimes. It is unknown, though, whether these risk factors are also relevant for the explanation of cybercrime perpetration. This meta-analytic review aimed to identify risk factors for cyberstalking, hacking, and sexting perpetrated by juveniles. A literature search yielded 48 articles (24 for cyberstalking, 15 for sexting, and 10 for hacking) that produced 903 effect sizes (306 for cyberstalking, 61 for sexting, and 536 for hacking). The results showed similarities, but also differences in risk factors for the three types of cybercrime. Overall, peer factors were found to be important for all three types (deviant peers for cyberstalking and hacking and peer pressure for sexting). Besides, for cyberstalking, previous online and offline perpetration and victimization were significant risk factors. Other small but significant effects for multiple cybercrime types were found for dark personality traits (for cyberstalking and sexting) and high computer preoccupation (for cyberstalking and hacking). Implications for (preventive) intervention are discussed, as well as the need for future research.
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?
Having younger partners is associated with higher cyberbullying victimization, albeit non-significantly.
“Interestingly, Wissink et al.67 observed an association, albeit non-significant, of having younger partners being linked to higher cyberbullying victimization.”
From Umbrella review of meta-analyses on the risk factors, protective factors, consequences and interventions of cyberbullying victimization (2024) · cites this paper as [67]
Personality traits such as neuroticism and low agreeableness can contribute to cyberbullying by affecting how individuals interact online and perceive hostile interactions.
“Furthermore, personality traits, such as neuroticism and low agreeableness, can contribute to cyberbullying by affecting how individuals interact online and perceive hostile interactions67.”
From Umbrella review of meta-analyses on the risk factors, protective factors, consequences and interventions of cyberbullying victimization (2024) · cites this paper as [67]
Cyberbullying victimization is associated with future perpetration.
“Cyberbullying victimization was associated with future perpetration across three meta-analyses67,82,99,127.”
From Umbrella review of meta-analyses on the risk factors, protective factors, consequences and interventions of cyberbullying victimization (2024) · cites this paper as [67]
Negative relationships with intimate partners significantly increase the risk of cyberbullying victimization to a small extent.
“Results from three meta-analyses indicate that negative relationships with intimate partners significantly increase the risk of cyberbullying victimization to a small extent64,67,107.”
From Umbrella review of meta-analyses on the risk factors, protective factors, consequences and interventions of cyberbullying victimization (2024) · cites this paper as [67]
Unfavourable school climates lacking proper teacher-student interactions are consistently associated with small increases in cyberbullying victimization.
“Ten meta-analyses reveal that unfavourable school climates lacking proper teacher–student interactions have been consistently associated with small increases in cyberbullying victimization28,37,67,73,82,99,104,108,118,132.”
From Umbrella review of meta-analyses on the risk factors, protective factors, consequences and interventions of cyberbullying victimization (2024) · cites this paper as [67]
Increased internet and digital media use has a small but significant association with higher cyberbullying victimization rates.
“A small but significant association was observed between increased internet and digital media use and higher cyberbullying victimization rates across seven meta-analyses37,67,73,82,99,104,127.”
From Umbrella review of meta-analyses on the risk factors, protective factors, consequences and interventions of cyberbullying victimization (2024) · cites this paper as [67]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 22
- Authors
- Wissink, I. B., Standaert, J. C. A., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., & Assink, M.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Wissink, Inge B.
- Venue
- Aggression and Violent Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-05
- Volume
- 70
- Pages
- 101836
- ISSN
- 1359-1789 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4361284334
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 5.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Aggression and Violent Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Keywords
- cyberstalking, hacking, sexting, risk factors, deviant peers, peer pressure, dark personality traits, cyber victimization, cybercrime prevention
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
