CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 622Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionImpact of Technology on AdolescentsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully–victims

Open access
Mishna, Faye, Khoury-Kassabri, Mona, Gadalla, Tahany, Daciuk, Joanne·2012·Children and Youth Services Review
DOI 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Mishna et al. (2012) reported school aggression and feeling unsafe at school among victims and bullies (mean age 13.85 years, Canada, N=2186).

    “Mishna et al. (2012) | 13.85 (mean years) | 2186 Canada | Victim and bully School aggression and feeling unsafe at school”

    From A review of cyberbullying and suggestions for online psychological therapy (2015) · cites this paper as Mishna et al. (2012)

    The study description (page unavailable) says seven focus groups included 38 students in grades 5–8, contrary to the attributed N=2,186 and mean age of 13.85. The paper discusses cyberbullying and fear, but the retrieved passages do not report the claimed finding about school aggression and feeling unsafe at school. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Increased school difficulties have been reported in victims, such as school aggression, truancy, lower academic achievement and not feeling safe in school.

    “In addition, increased school difficulties have also been reported such as school aggression, truancy, lower academic achievement and not feeling safe in school (Cassidy et al., 2013;Mishna et al., 2012).”

    From A review of cyberbullying and suggestions for online psychological therapy (2015) · cites this paper as Mishna et al., 2012

    The Cyber Bullying section (page unavailable) reports that cyberbullied students had difficulty concentrating that affected their grades and were more likely to skip school. It links aggression to perpetrators, not victims, and does not report that victims felt unsafe at school. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • More frequent daily on-line activity, as testified to by Smartphone and Internet usage, increased the likelihood of performing cyberbullying acts.

    “Indeed, more frequent daily on-line activity, as testified to by Smartphone and Internet usage, increased the likelihood of performing cyberbullying acts (for similar results, see Mishna et al., 2012;Rice et al., 2015).”

    From Cyberbullying through the lens of social influence: Predicting cyberbullying perpetration from perceived peer-norm, cyberspace regulations and ingroup processes (2020) · cites this paper as Mishna et al., 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Calvert, S., Rideout, V., Woolard, J., Barr, R., & Strouse, G. (2005). Age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic patterns in early computer use. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 590 -607.
  2. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
  3. Craig, W.M., & Pepler, D. (2008). Introduction: Understanding and addressing bullying: An international perspective. In D. Pepler, & W. Craig (Eds.), Understanding and addressing bullying: An international perspective (pp. xix-xxvi). Bloomington, Indiana: Authorhouse.
  4. Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
  5. Davis, A., & Jones, L. (1996). Environmental constraints on health: Listening to children's views. Health Education Journal, 55, 363-374.
  6. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
  7. Hanish, L.D., & Guerra, N.G. (2000). Children who get victimized at school: What is known? What can be done? Professional School Counseling, 4(2), 113-119.
  8. Heary, C.M., & Hennessy, E. (2002). The use of focus group interviews in pediatric health care research. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27(1), 47-57.
  9. Horner, S.D. (2000). Focus on research methods: Using focus group methods with middle school children. Research in Nursing & Health, 23(6), 510-517.
  10. Kaynay, J.M., & Yelsma, P. (2000). Displacement effects of online media in the socio-technical contexts of households. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 215-29.
  11. Kruger, R.A. (1994). Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research (2nd Edition). London: Sage Publications.
  12. Mishna, F., & Alaggia, R. (2005). Weighing the risks: A child's decision to disclose peer victimization. Children & Schools, 27(4), 217-226.
  13. Mitchell, K.J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2003). Victimization of youths on the Internet. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 8(1/2), 1-39.
  14. O'Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452.
  15. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(3), 238-259.
  16. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research. Special Issue: (Mis)communicating across boundaries, 25(6), 689-715.
  17. Shariff, S., & Johnny, L. (2007). Cyber-libel and cyber bullying: Can schools protect student reputations and free expression in virtual environments? McGill Journal of Education, 16, 307-342.
  18. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Mishna, Faye
ORCID
Venue
Children and Youth Services Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-01
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
63-70
ISSN
0190-7409 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032
OpenAlex
W2080702141
Cited by
622
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 7
FWCI
30.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Children and Youth Services Review (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
cyberbullying, bully-victims, risk factors, middle and high school students, gender differences, computer use, password sharing, parental involvement, youth violence

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