Cited by 296Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionWorkplace Violence and BullyingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Defining and Measuring Cyberbullying Within the Larger Context of Bullying Victimization

Open access
Ybarra, Michele L., Boyd, Danah, Korchmaros, Josephine D., Oppenheim, Jay (Koby)·2012·Journal of Adolescent Health

Abstract

Purpose To inform the scientific debate about bullying, including cyberbullying, measurement. Methods Two split-form surveys were conducted online among 6-17-year-olds (n = 1,200 each) to inform recommendations for cyberbullying measurement. Results Measures that use the word "bully" result in prevalence rates similar to each other, irrespective of whether a definition is included, whereas measures not using the word "bully" are similar to each other, irrespective of whether a definition is included. A behavioral list of bullying experiences without either a definition or the word "bully" results in higher prevalence rates and likely measures experiences that are beyond the definition of "bullying." Follow-up questions querying differential power, repetition, and bullying over time were used to examine misclassification. The measure using a definition but not the word "bully" appeared to have the highest rate of false positives and, therefore, the highest rate of misclassification. Across two studies, an average of 25% reported being bullied at least monthly in person compared with an average of 10% bullied online, 7% via telephone (cell or landline), and 8% via text messaging. Conclusions Measures of bullying among English-speaking individuals in the United States should include the word "bully" when possible. The definition may be a useful tool for researchers, but results suggest that it does not necessarily yield a more rigorous measure of bullying victimization. Directly measuring aspects of bullying (i.e., differential power, repetition, over time) reduces misclassification. To prevent double counting across domains, we suggest the following distinctions: mode (e.g., online, in-person), type (e.g., verbal, relational), and environment (e.g., school, home). We conceptualize cyberbullying as bullying communicated through the online mode.

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.jadohealth.2011.12.031

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Where intention, repetition or an imbalance of power are absent from cyberbullying research, such behaviors may be more appropriately classified as cyberaggression.

    “Where intention, repetition or an imbalance of power are absent from cyberbullying research, such behaviors may be more appropriately classified as cyberaggression, given that these criteria are central to differentiate bullying from aggression more broadly (15, 24, 70).”

    From A thematic analysis of adolescents’ perceptions of cyberbullying and cyberaggression: definitional distinctions and educational gaps (2026) · cites this paper as [70]

    The passage labeled Abstract > Conclusions says behavioral lists may measure general aggression rather than repetitive bullying between people of differential power. The paper also treats repetition and differential power as criteria for bullying, including online bullying. These passages support the distinction, but they do not identify intention as a criterion or use the term “cyberaggression.” No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ybarra, M. L., Boyd, D., Korchmaros, J. D., & Oppenheim, J. (.
Affiliations
  • Center for Innovative Public Health Research (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
Venue
Journal of Adolescent Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
53-58
ISSN
1054-139X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021243193
Cited by
296
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 7
FWCI
45.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Adolescent Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD057191)
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
cyberbullying, bullying victimization, bullying measurement, definition of bullying, prevalence rates, misclassification, repetition, text messaging, adolescents, school bullying
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Male, Terminology as Topic, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence, Crime Victims, Internet, 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