CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 344Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six European countries

Open access
Menesini, Ersilia, Nocentini, Annalaura, Palladino, Benedetta Emanuela, Frisén, Ann, Berne, Sofia, Ortega-Ruiz, Rosario, Calmaestra, Juan, Scheithauer, Herbert +6 more·2012·Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking
DOI 10.1089/cyber.2012.0040PMC PMC3443335
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Several criteria have been proposed for defining cyberbullying to young people, but no studies have proved their relevance. There are also variations across different countries in the meaning and the definition of this behavior. We systematically investigated the role of five definitional criteria for cyberbullying, in six European countries. These criteria (intentionality, imbalance of power, repetition, anonymity, and public vs. private) were combined through a set of 32 scenarios, covering a range of four types of behaviors (written-verbal, visual, exclusion, and impersonation). For each scenario, participants were asked whether it was cyberbullying or not. A randomized version of the questionnaire was shown to 295 Italian, 610 Spanish, 365 German, 320 Sweden, 336 Estonian, and 331 French adolescents aged 11-17 years. Results from multidimensional scaling across country and type of behavior suggested a clear first dimension characterized by imbalance of power and a clear second dimension characterized by intentionality and, at a lower level, by anonymity. In terms of differences across types of behaviors, descriptive frequencies showed a more ambiguous role for exclusion as a form of cyberbullying, but general support was given to the relevance of the two dimensions across all the types of behavior. In terms of country differences, French participants more often perceived the scenarios as cyberbullying as compared with those in other countries, but general support was found for the relevance of the two dimensions across countries.

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 · 10.1089/cyber.2012.0040

Cites

29 of 29 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 [56]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies power imbalance as the strongest criterion adolescents used to define cyberbullying. But it explicitly calls repetition an exception, saying it is arguably not so important in the virtual context. The paper therefore supports the claim about power imbalance, not the claim that repetition was also a defining feature for adolescents. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Menesini et al. asked adolescents to evaluate cyberbullying scenarios and found that intention and power imbalance were most important.

    “Menesini et al. (56) asked adolescents to evaluate cyberbullying scenarios and found that intention and power imbalance (defined as the victim being upset and unable to defend themselves) were most important.”

    From A thematic analysis of adolescents’ perceptions of cyberbullying and cyberaggression: definitional distinctions and educational gaps (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

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: 7

  1. [4]Smith PK. Cyberbullying and cyber aggression. In: Jimerson RS, editor; Nickerson BA, editor; Mayer JM, editor; Furlong JM, editor. Handbook of school violence and school safety: international research and practice. New York: NY: Routledge; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  2. [11]Smith PK. Cyberbullying: abusive relationships in cyberspace. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology. 2009;217:180–181. [Google Scholar]
  3. [15]Dooley JJ. Pyżalski J. Cross D. Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology. 2009;217:182–188. [Google Scholar]
  4. [18]Smith PK. Brain P. Bullying in schools: lessons from two decades of research. Aggressive behavior. 2000;26:1–9. [Google Scholar]
  5. [27]Willard EN. Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: responding to the challange of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Illinois: Malloy, Inc.; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  6. [29]Berne S. Frisen A. Adolescents' view on how different criteria define cyberbullying. ECDP conference; 2011 Aug 23–27; Bergen, Norway. [Google Scholar]
  7. [30]Borg I. Groenen PJF. Modern multidimensional scaling. 2nd. New York: Springer; 2005. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B. E., Frisén, A., Berne, S., Ortega-Ruiz, R., Calmaestra, J., Scheithauer, H., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Luik, P., Naruskov, K., Blaya, C., Berthaud, J., & Smith, P. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Florence (IT)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • Department of Psychology, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain.
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Department of Educational Science and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
  • University of Tartu (EE)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Menesini, Ersilia
ORCID
Venue
Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-09
Volume
15
Issue
9
Pages
455-463
ISSN
  • 2152-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 2152-2723
DOI
10.1089/cyber.2012.0040
PMC
PMC3443335
OpenAlex
W2128985605
Cited by
344
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
FWCI
28.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.liebertpub.com/nv/resources-tools/text-and-data-mining-policy/121/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
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, definition of cyberbullying, adolescents, intentionality, anonymity, exclusion, impersonation, cross-national comparison, European adolescents
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Europe, Female, Humans, Language, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, 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