CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 79Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionWorkplace Violence and BullyingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Was that (cyber)bullying? Investigating the operational definitions of bullying and cyberbullying from adolescents’ perspective

Open access
Menin, Damiano, Guarini, Annalisa, Mameli, Consuelo, Skrzypiec, Grace, Brighi, Antonella·2021·International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology
DOI 10.1016/j.ijchp.2021.100221PMC PMC7856459
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background/Objective: Despite the great interest that bullying and cyberbullying have received during the last decades, the problem of defining these phenomena is still debated. Recently, this discussion has also been articulated in terms of how young people who are directly involved in bullying and cyberbullying understand these notions. This study aimed at investigating the operational definitions of both bullying and cyberbullying provided by adolescent victims and perpetrators, by inquiring the weight of traditional criteria (i.e., frequency, deliberateness, imbalance of power, and harm) as well as dominance in the perception of these phenomena. Method: A total of 899 students aged between 11 and 16 years filled out the Student Aggression and Victimisation Questionnaire. Results: Common traits and differences between the operational definition of bullying and cyberbullying and between the perspectives of victims and perpetrators of aggression were found. The most relevant criterion for the perception of both these phenomena was clearly the presence of dominance. By contrast, the imbalance of power showed no significant relationship with the perception of being bullied or bullying others both offline and online. Conclusions: Findings emphasise that young people conceptualise bullying with a clear reference to relational and group processes, rather than to individual differences. Antecedentes/Objetivo: A pesar del gran interés que el bullying y el cyberbullying han despertado durante las últimas décadas, el problema de la definición de estos fenómenos es todavía motivo de debate. Recientemente, la literatura ha abarcado esta controversia a partir de la comprensión que los jóvenes tienen del bullying y cyberbullying. Este artículo investiga las definiciones operativas, proporcionadas por víctimas y agresores, tras analizar la envergadura que tienen estos factores: frecuencia, intencionalidad, desequilibrio de poder, daño y dominancia. Método: Un total de 899 alumnos entre 11 y 16 años rellenaron el Student Aggression and Victimisation Questionnaire. Resultados: Los resultados evidenciaron rasgos comunes y diferencias entre las definiciones operativas de bullying y cyberbullying, al igual que entre las perspectivas de víctimas y perpetradores. El criterio más relevante para la definición de ambos fenómenos fue la percepción de la dominancia. En cambio, el desequilibrio de poder no mostró relaciones significativas con la definición de bullying y cyberbullying. Conclusiones: Estos hallazgos hacen hincapié en cómo los jóvenes interpretan el bullying, con un enfoque en los procesos relacionales y grupales, más que en las diferencias individuales.

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.ijchp.2021.100221

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • There was little mention of power imbalance or repetition in discussions around defining cyberbullying, despite these being defining features for adolescents in previous research.

    “There was little mention of power imbalance or repetition in discussions around defining cyberbullying, despite these being defining features for adolescents in previous research (54–57, 59).”

    From A thematic analysis of adolescents’ perceptions of cyberbullying and cyberaggression: definitional distinctions and educational gaps (2026) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says repetition influenced adolescents’ perception of cyberbullying victimisation, consistent with earlier studies. But the Results, “Perception of cyberbullying” (page unavailable), say power imbalance did not predict adolescents’ perception of cyberbullying; the cited passages do not establish it as a defining feature for adolescents in previous research. The citing authors’ observation that their own discussions mentioned these features little is not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Menin et al. surveyed Italian adolescents and found that dominance, frequency, and intention were key criteria for victims, while only dominance was identified for perpetration.

    “Menin et al. (55) surveyed Italian adolescents and found that dominance, frequency, and intention were key criteria for victims, while only dominance was identified for perpetration.”

    From A thematic analysis of adolescents’ perceptions of cyberbullying and cyberaggression: definitional distinctions and educational gaps (2026) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Participants section reports a survey of adolescents in Italy. The Results on cyberbullying support the stated pattern: dominance, frequency and deliberateness (intention) predicted victims’ perceptions, while only dominance predicted perpetrators’ perceptions. But the claim does not limit that pattern to cyberbullying: in the Results on face-to-face bullying, frequency was not a significant predictor for victims, and deliberateness also predicted perpetrators’ perceptions. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The disregard of power imbalance is congruent with previous research.

    “In contrast, the disregard of power imbalance is congruent with previous research (55, 59).”

    From A thematic analysis of adolescents’ perceptions of cyberbullying and cyberaggression: definitional distinctions and educational gaps (2026) · cites this paper as [55]

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

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Skrzypiec G. Wyra M. Didaskalou E. A Global Perspective of Young Adolescents’ Peer Aggression and Well-being 2019 Routledge

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Menin, D., Guarini, A., Mameli, C., Skrzypiec, G., & Brighi, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Ferrara (IT)
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (IT)
Corresponding author
Brighi, Antonella
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-05
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
100221
ISSN
1697-2600 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijchp.2021.100221
PMC
PMC7856459
OpenAlex
W3128783838
Cited by
79
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 6
FWCI
12.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Ferrara (University of Ferrara) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Libera Università di Bolzano
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, operational definitions, adolescents' perceptions, bullying victims, bullying perpetrators, dominance, intentionality, harm, frequency, relational processes, group process, online aggression, school bullying, peer victimization, peer aggression, school climate, school safety

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