Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying?

By Robert Slonje, Peter K. Smith. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2008

1,813 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Plant Science, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/af66337473fa07e019c6d3dc90f7da8ffbae7023

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Plant Science

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

A Comparison of Preservice Teachers’ Responses to Cyber Versus Traditional Bullying Scenarios (2014, background): “…bullying (Basu & Jones, 2007), (c) the accessibility of victims being greater for cyber bullying than for traditional bullying (the “24/7” view; Slonje & Smith, 2008), (d) the greater degree of “editability” or being able to reflect on the actions/words used to maximize distress being…”
What Makes a Bully a Cyberbully? Unravelling the Characteristics of Cyberbullies across Twenty-Five European Countries (2013, background): “Others have found that boys are more likely to be cyberbullies than girls, especially for text messaging (Li, 2006; Slonje & Smith, 2008); however, whether the boys in these studies were also more likely to be cyberbullies than girls relative to traditional bullies (i.e. whether the male:female…”
Towards typologies of virtual maltreatment: sport, digital cultures & dark leisure (2016, methodology): “Based on this, we propose a working definition of virtual maltreatment and a conceptual framework for classifying abuse online within sport building upon existing typologies, but adapted in terms of, and informed by the qualitatively different (Slonje & Smith, 2008) nature of online abuse.”
Cyberbullying in Germany - an exploration of prevalence, overlapping with real life bullying and coping strategies (2009, background): “Some research has been conducted on cyberbulling so far, including Li (2006), Beran and Li (2005) as well as Kowalski et al. (2005) and Patchin and Hinduja (2006) in the United States; Slonje and Smith (2008) in Sweden and Smith et al. (2008) in the United Kingdom.”
Victims’ perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying, and the psychosocial correlates of their victimisation (2012, result): “This qualification of impact and severity is in line with Slonje and Smith's ( 2008 ) study, which reported that students in general tempered their views on the impact of cyberbullying according to the medium employed, suggesting a subjective continuum of impact in relation to cyber and traditional ”
Peer victimisation and depressive symptoms: can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cybervictimisation? (2012, background): “In fact, Slonje and Smith (2008) suppose that adults are less aware of cybervictimisation as a problem.”
Perceptions of School Climate as a Function of Bullying Involvement (2014, background): “Some studies have found girls to be more involved in cyberbullying (Rivers & Noret, 2010), whereas others have found boys to be more involved (Erdur-Baker, 2010; Slonje & Smith, 2008).”
Does empathy predict (cyber) bullying perpetration, and how do age, gender and nationality affect this relationship? (2016, background): “However, other studies did not find significant age differences (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008).”
It’s “Mean,” But What Does It Mean to Adolescents? Relational Aggression Described by Victims, Aggressors, and Their Peers (2010, background): “According to recent research, the use of technology to enact aggressive behavior has escalated in the past 5 years (Beran & Li, 2005; Campbell, 2005; Li, 2007; Slonje & Smith, 2008).”
Detection and Fine-Grained Classification of Cyberbullying Events (2015, background): “A fair amount of research has been done on the definition and occurrence of the phenomenon (Liv-ingstone et al., 2010; Hinduja and Patchin, 2012; Slonje and Smith, 2008), the identiﬁcation of different forms of cyberbullying (O’Sullivan and Flanagin, 2003; Vandebosch and Cleemput, 2009; Willard,…”
Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. (2013, background): “…in some important aspects (e.g., potential anonymity, inability to see perpetrator/victim) and suggest that, although they may share features in common, cyberbullying and traditional bullying are qualitatively different phenomena perpetrated by somewhat different groups of individuals [36] [37].”
From cyberbullying to electronic aggression: typology of the phenomenon (2012, background): “Aggressive acts via some kinds of electronic media are more harmful than others, e.g. those including visual material that pictures a victim (Slonje and Smith 2008).”
Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in adolescence: Differential roles of moral disengagement, moral emotions, and moral values (2012, background): “…of direct contact it has been hypothesized that cyberbullying might make it easier for the bully both to act immorally without feeling guilty (Slonje & Smith, 2008) and to apply cognitive strategies to dissociate him/herself from moral responsibility (Almeida, Marinho, Esteves, Gomes, &…”
Risk Factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies, and bully-victims (2012, background): “…as email, text, or pictures can be viewed far and wide, can be distributed not only by the perpetrator but by anyone who has access (Campbell, 2005; Slonje & Smith, 2008), and can be difficult or indeed impossible for the victimized child or youth to remove (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2007).”