CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 405Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionImpact of Technology on AdolescentsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cyberbullying: Labels, Behaviours and Definition in Three European Countries

Nocentini, Annalaura, Calmaestra, Juan, Schultze-Krumbholz, Anja, Scheithauer, Herbert, Ortega, Rosario, Menesini, Ersilia·2010·Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling
DOI 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract This study aims to examine students' perception of the term used to label cyberbullying, the perception of different forms and behaviours (written, verbal, visual, exclusion and impersonation) and the perception of the criteria used for its definition (imbalance of power, intention, repetition, anonymity and publicity) in three different European countries: Italy, Spain and Germany. Seventy adolescents took part in nine focus groups, using the same interview guide across countries. Thematic analysis focused on three main themes related to: (1) the term used to label cyberbullying, (2) the different behaviours representing cyberbullying, (3) the three traditional criteria of intentionality, imbalance of power and repetition and the two new criteria of anonymity and publicity. Results showed that the best word to label cyberbullying is ‘cyber-mobbing’ (in Germany), ‘virtual’ or ‘cyber-bullying’ (in Italy), and ‘harassment’ or ‘harassment via Internet or mobile phone’ (in Spain). Impersonation cannot be considered wholly as cyberbullying behaviour. In order to define a cyberbullying act, adolescents need to know whether the action was done intentionally to harm the victim, the effect on the victim and the repetition of the action (this latter criterion evaluated simultaneously with the publicity). Information about the anonymity and publicity contributes to better understand the nature and the severity of the act, the potential effects on the victim and the intentionality.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129

Cites

26 of 26 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

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. J Fiebig . (2010 ).Anonymitat und Offentlichkeit -- Eine Untersuchung der neuen Kriterien zur Beschreibung des Phanomens Cyberbullying. Unpublished bachelor thesis, Freie Universitat Berlin, Berlin.
  2. J Hoher . (2010 ).Cyberbullying: Eine Evaluation der Bullyingkriterien im Cyberspace -- Qualitative Auswertung von Gruppeninterviews mit Jugendlichen. Unpublished bachelor thesis, Freie Universitat Berlin, Berlin.
  3. Ortega R, 2001, Revista interuniversitaria de formacion del profesorado, 41, 95
  4. A Schultze-Krumbholz, and H Scheithauer . (2009 ). Measuring Cyberbullying and Cybervictimisation by Using Behavioral Categories - The Berlin Cyberbullying-Cybervictimisation Questionnaire (BCCQ), COST ACTION ISO801 Workshop, Post Conference XIV ECDP, 18-22 August, 2009, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega, R., & Menesini, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Florence (IT)
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Nocentini, Annalaura
ORCID
Venue
Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-12-01
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
129-142
ISSN
  • 1037-2911 (ISSN-L)
  • 1839-2520
DOI
10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129
OpenAlex
W1975173369
Cited by
405
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 22
FWCI
17.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 449 d)
Locations
  • Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Government
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
cyberbullying, adolescents' perceptions, impersonation, exclusion, anonymity, publicity, intentionality, repetition, cross-cultural comparison, Italy, Spain, Germany

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