The protective role of dispositional mindfulness against the perpetuation of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration among adolescents
Abstract
Few studies have examined the protective factors that contribute to reducing long-term involvement in cyberbullying (CB). This study examined whether dispositional mindfulness is associated with the reduced stability over time (i.e., long-term involvement) of CB victimization and perpetration and with the lower reciprocity of both. This was a three-wave longitudinal study spaced 6 months apart. The sample consisted of 985 high school students from the Basque Country (Spain). The participants completed a mindfulness measure at time one and measures of CB victimization and perpetration at three time points. Dispositional mindfulness was negatively associated with both CB victimization and CB perpetration over time. The predictive association between CB victimization and perpetration was reciprocal from time two to time three. Moreover, the interaction between dispositional mindfulness and CB victimization indicated that victimization was less stable over time when mindfulness was higher. The model was invariant across gender or age. The results indicate that CB is a long-term problem and that dispositional mindfulness can be beneficial because it predicts a lower frequency of CB victimization and perpetration over time.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The association between cyberbullying victimization and perpetration is typically high.
“Thus, the association between cyberbullying victimization and perpetration is typically high (Royuela-Colomer et al., 2018).”
From Effects of a Brief Preventive Intervention in Cyberbullying and Grooming in Adolescents (2021) · cites this paper as Royuela-Colomer et al., 2018
Cyberbullying and grooming share a high reciprocity between victimization and behavior execution.
“A common characteristic of cyberbullying and grooming is the high reciprocity between victimization and behavior execution.”
From Effects of a Brief Preventive Intervention in Cyberbullying and Grooming in Adolescents (2021) · cites this paper as Royuela-Colomer et al., 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 34
- Authors
- Royuela-Colomer, E., Calvete, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., & Orue, I.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Deusto (ES)
- Department of Biological and Health Psychology, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
- Corresponding author
- Calvete, Esther
- Venue
- Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-11
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 703-710
- ISSN
- 2152-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 2152-2723
- OpenAlex
- W2901250991
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 5.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- trait mindfulness, cyberbullying, cyber victimization, cyberbullying perpetration, adolescents, reciprocal effects, longitudinal stability, protective factors, high school students
- MeSH terms
- Cyberbullying, Adolescent, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Spain, Students, Time Factors, Crime Victims, Mindfulness
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