CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 310Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionWorkplace Violence and BullyingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Traditional bullying as a potential warning sign of cyberbullying

Kowalski, Robin M., Morgan, Chad A., Limber, Susan P.·2012·School Psychology International
DOI 10.1177/0143034312445244
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although traditional bullying and cyberbullying share features in common, they differ in important ways. For example, cyberbullying is often characterized by perceived anonymity and can occur any time of the day or night. Conversely, perpetrators of traditional bullying are known to the victim, and most traditional bullying occurs at school. Yet, some researchers have suggested that involvement in the two types of bullying may be related. However, little research has modeled the system of relationships among the perpetration and victimization of traditional bullying and cyberbullying. The present study uses path analysis to arrive at a suitable model of these relationships, and describes the gender differences in these relationships. Students ( N = 4,531) in grades 6 through 12 completed a survey examining their involvement in traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Analysis proceeded by making fit comparisons among hypothesized path models. More frequent traditional bullying perpetration and victimization were associated with higher frequency of their electronic counterparts. However, the relationship between traditional perpetration and victimization was stronger for females than males as was the effect of traditional victimization on cyber-victimization. Implications for school practitioners are presented.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0143034312445244

Cites

30 of 30 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 310

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kowalski, R. M., Morgan, C. A., & Limber, S. P.
Affiliations
Clemson University (US)
Corresponding author
Kowalski, Robin M.
ORCID
Venue
School Psychology International
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-09-20
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
505-519
ISSN
  • 0143-0343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7374
DOI
10.1177/0143034312445244
OpenAlex
W2098202740
Cited by
310
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 6
FWCI
40.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
School Psychology International (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Workplace Violence and Bullying
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
traditional bullying, cyberbullying, bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, warning signs, gender differences, school students, perceived anonymity, path 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