CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionImpact of Technology on Adolescents

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Evolution of Cyberbullying Definitions in the Digital Age: A Systematic Review of Defining Attributes and Conceptual Synthesis

Kim, Sangmi, Ahn, Seon-Kyeong, Yang, Eunbyeor Sophie, Kim, Seohyun, Chung, Ick-Joong·2026·Journal of Technology in Human Services
DOI 10.1080/15228835.2026.2647023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Cyberbullying is a major concern in youth digital environments. Using PRISMA-guided procedures and Walker and Avant’s concept analysis framework, we systematically reviewed definitions of cyberbullying published between 2000 and 2024. Searches across four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus) identified 1,536 records. After duplicate removal and multistage screening, 43 peer-reviewed studies met the final inclusion criteria. Across these studies, eight recurrent attributes were coded: electronic or digital mediation, aggressive behavior, willfulness or intentionality, repetition or persistence, harm, accessibility or ubiquity, anonymity, and power imbalance. The findings show substantial variation in how several attributes, particularly intentionality, repetition, anonymity, and power imbalance, were defined or emphasized across studies. Based on these patterns, this review offers an interpretive refinement of cyberbullying’s defining attributes to better reflect contemporary digital environments. By documenting definitional change over time, this study provides a clearer conceptual foundation for future youth-focused research, policy, and practice.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15228835.2026.2647023

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 69 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. 10.11575/ajer.v60i2.55807 · DOI
  2. Cyberbullying Research Center. (2018 July 17). Cyberbullying legislation and case law: Implications for school policy and practice. Cyberbullying Research Center. https://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying-fact-sheet-a-brief-review-of-relevant-legal-and-policy-issues
  3. Hassan, S. (2024). Shaping the future of the internet we want. UUM Press.
  4. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
  5. Khawar, R., & Malik, F. (2016). Bullying behavior of Pakistani pre-adolescents: Findings based on Olweus questionnaire. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 31(1), 23.
  6. Krešić Ćorić, M., & Kaštelan, A. (2020). Bullying through the internet-cyberbullying. Psychiatria Danubina, 32(suppl. 2), 269–272.
  7. Li, Q. (2008). Bullying, school violence and more: A research model. IEJLL: International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 12(19). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ940611
  8. Limber, S. P., Kowalski, R. M., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). Cyber bullying: A prevention curriculum for grades 6–12. Hazelden Publishing.
  9. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullies on the playground: The role of victimization. Research Perspectives and Applications (pp. 85–128). State University of New York Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-98114-003
  10. Olweus, D. (2013). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Psychology Press.
  11. Piotrowski, C. (2012). Cyberbullying: A research-based content analysis of the psychological literature. Alabama Counseling Association Journal, 38(1), 13–19.
  12. Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2019). Strategies for theory construction in nursing (6th ed.). Pearson.
  13. Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Research Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 4

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kim, S., Ahn, S.-K., Yang, E. S., Kim, S., & Chung, I.-J.
Affiliations
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
  • Ewha Womans University (KR)
  • Portland State University (US)
Corresponding author
Kim, Sangmi
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Technology in Human Services
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2026-03-31
Pages
1-31
ISSN
  • 0740-445X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-8835
  • 1522-8991
DOI
10.1080/15228835.2026.2647023
OpenAlex
W7147383427
Cited by
4
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
6.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Technology in Human Services (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
cyberbullying, defining attributes, intentionality, anonymity, power imbalance, repetition, harm, youth, digital environment, conceptual synthesis, conceptual analysis

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