Predictors of Traditional and Cyber-Bullying Victimization: A Longitudinal Study of Australian Secondary School Students
Abstract
The purpose of the present article is to compare the individual, peer, family, and school risk and protective factors for both traditional and cyber-bullying victimization. This article draws on data from 673 students from Victoria, Australia, to examine Grade 7 (aged 12-13 years) predictors of traditional and cyber-bullying victimization in Grade 9 (aged 14-15 years). Participants completed a modified version of the Communities That Care youth survey. There were few similarities and important differences in the predictors of traditional and cyber-bullying victimization. For Grade 9 cyber-bullying victimization, in the fully adjusted model, having been a victim of traditional bullying in Grade 7 and emotional control in Grade 7 were predictors. For Grade 9 traditional bullying victimization, predictors were Grade 7 traditional bullying victimization, association with antisocial peers, and family conflict, with family attachment and emotional control marginally statistically significant. The use of evidence-based bullying prevention programs is supported to reduce experiences of both traditional and cyber-bullying victimization, as is the implementation of programs to assist students to regulate their emotions effectively. In addition, traditional bullying victimization may be reduced by addressing association with antisocial friends, family conflict, and bonding to families.
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?
Emotional vulnerabilities such as poor anger management, antisocial tendencies or externalizing behaviours can increase the likelihood of becoming a cyberbullying victim.
“Further, emotional vulnerabilities, such as poor anger management, antisocial tendencies or externalizing behaviours, can increase the likelihood of becoming a cyberbullying victim150.”
From Umbrella review of meta-analyses on the risk factors, protective factors, consequences and interventions of cyberbullying victimization (2024) · cites this paper as [150]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 69 · Cited by 84
- Authors
- Hemphill, S. A., Tollit, M., Kotevski, A., & Heerde, J. A.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Australian Catholic University (AU)
- Venue
- Journal of Interpersonal Violence
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-10-13
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 2567-2590
- ISSN
- 0886-2605 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6518
- OpenAlex
- W2018645161
- Cited by
- 84
- References
- 69
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 6.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Interpersonal Violence (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA012140)
- 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, traditional bullying, bullying victimization, risk and protective factors, emotional control, antisocial peers, family conflict, family attachment, bullying prevention programs, adolescents, peer affiliation
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Age Factors, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Australia, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Peer Group, Students, 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