Multiple victimization (bullying and cyberbullying) in Primary Education in Spain from a gender perspective

Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details: http://remie.hipatiapress.com Multiple Victimization (Bullying and Cyberbullying) in Primary Education in Spain from a Gender Perspective Rocío Jiménez1 1) Universidad de Sevilla Date of publication: June 15th, 2019 Edition period: February 2019-June 2019 To cite this article: Jiménez, R. (2019). Multiple Victimization (Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying) in Primary Education in Spain and Associated School Variables from a Gender Perspective. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 169-192. doi: 10.4471/remie.2019.4272 To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.447/remie.2019.4272 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY). REMIE – Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research Vol. 9 No. 2 june 2019, pp. 169-193 2013 Hipatia Press ISSN: 2014-4272 DOI: 10.4471/remie.2019.4272 Multiple Victimization (Bullying and Cyberbullying) in Primary Education in Spain from a Gender Perspective Rocío Jiménez Universidad de Sevilla Abstract Studies show that face-to-face aggression extends to other types of bullying behaviours through digital technologies. Current research is limited in primary education and contradictory in terms of gender. This study looked at the prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying in Spain at an early age, identifying groups of victims from a gender perspective. It also associated school variables (sense of belonging at school, absenteeism or student confidence in STEM subjects) to the most vulnerable profile. In a second analysis, 4756 Spanish 4th grade Primary Education pupils completed the TIMMS 2015 standardized survey. The results showed four groups of victims, two characterized by multiple victimization (bullying and cyberbullying). There were significant gender differences between the groups. The percentage of girls in the profile of victims of severe harassment was higher. However, overall there was a greater presence of boys across the different groups of victims. The school variables considered were associated differentially according to gender. The student sense of belonging at school was not the same for girls and boys, nor did they have the same attitude towards absenteeism. The results are discussed in relation to other studies together with conclusions regarding the design of educational interventions and future research. Keywords: bullying perpetration, cyberbullying, gender studies, primary education, school curriculum, violence REMIE – Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research Vol. 9 No. 2 June 2019, pp. 169-193 2013 Hipatia Press ISSN: 2014-4272 DOI: 10.4471/remie.2019.4272 Victimización Múltiple (Bullying y ciberacoso) en la Educación Primaria en España desde una Perspectiva de Género Rocío Jiménez Universidad de Sevilla Resumen Los estudios demuestran que la agresión cara a cara se extiende a otros tipos de comportamientos de acoso escolar a través de tecnologías digitales. La investigación actual es limitada en educación primaria y contradictoria en términos de género. Este estudio analizó la prevalencia del bullying y el ciberacoso en España a una edad temprana, identificando grupos de víctimas desde una perspectiva de género. También asoció las variables escolares (sentido de pertenencia a la escuela, absentismo o confianza del estudiantado en las materias STEM) a perfiles más vulnerable. En un segundo análisis, 4756 alumnos españoles de educación primaria de cuarto grado completaron la encuesta estandarizada TIMMS 2015. Los resultados mostraron cuatro grupos de víctimas, dos caracterizadas por la victimización múltiple (bullying y cyberbullying). Hubo diferencias significativas de género entre los grupos. El porcentaje de niñas en el perfil de víctimas de acoso severo fue mayor. Sin embargo, en general, hubo una mayor presencia de niños en los diferentes grupos de víctimas. Las variables escolares consideradas se asociaron de forma diferencial según el género. El sentido de pertenencia del estudiantado en la escuela no era el mismo para niñas y niños, ni tenían la misma actitud hacia el absentismo. Los resultados se discuten en relación con otros estudios, junto con conclusiones sobre el diseño de intervenciones educativas y futuras investigaciones. Keywords: acoso escolar, cyberbullying, estudios de género, educación primaria, currículo escolar, violencia REMIE – Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 9(2) 171 Peer harassment is a problem which has always been associated to school. However, widespread use of smartphones and tablets with internet connections at an increasingly earlier age has led to new forms of aggression which go beyond these confines via their use of digital technologies, in what the literature refers to as cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013; Machimbarrena & Garaigordobil, 2017). School harassment or bullying implies consciously doing harm or being cruel to victims. In general, traditional forms of school bullying can be divided into three categories of aggression: physical (hit, kick), verbal (insults, teasing) and social (ignoring and isolating). Behind these behaviours lies an inequality of power (physical, verbal, psychological or social) between a weak victim and a strong aggressor leaving the victim defenceless (Garaigordobil, Martínez & Machimbarrena, 2017). Cyberharassment or cyberbullying is understood as a succession of intimidatory practices performed using digital technologies and which do harm to the victim. These practices include smears, threats and identity theft, amongst others. However, there is still no exact standard definition of cyberbullying (Maquilón, Giménez, Hernández & García, 2011). This represents one of the most questionable aspects of research in this area because of its possible relation to inconsistent results regarding prevalence. Findings over the prevalence of cyberbullying vary widely and depend also on the samples and even how it is measured (Ockerman, Kramer & Bruno, 2014; Vivolo-Kantor, Martell, Holland & Westby, 2014). Both face-to-face school bullying and its digital equivalent involve varied forms of inter-peer aggression and when they combine, they subject victims to multiple forms of harassment. For Ortega et al. (2012) the current categorization, traditional bullying as opposed to cyberbullying, is incapable of reflecting the complexity of these phenomena. Some specific types of cyberbullying may be similar to some specific types of traditional bullying. Studies on bullying and cyberbullying approach intimidation behaviours amongst peers as a continuum which oscillates between face-to-face aggression and smearing using digital technologies. Large studies, such as that by Olweus (2013), suggest that roughly 90% of cybervictims also suffer traditional bullying. The study by Hinduja & Patching (2008) links cyberbullying and traditional bullying in the school playground. Youngsters P Jiménez – Multiple Victimization: Bullying & Cyberbullying 172 intimidated at school are much more likely to be cyberbullied. Face-to-face aggression extends to other types of cyberbullying behaviours. Hence these types of behaviours often lead to continued aggression. Some studies (Del Rey, Elipe & Ortega, 2012; Kubiszewski, Fontaine, Potard & Auzoult, 2015) have looked specifically at the overlapping and similarities and/or differences between these two forms of intimidation. Research has tackled the subject of cyberbullying mainly in adolescents, in other words, in secondary school students (Sentürk & Bayat, 2016; Shin, Braithwaite & Ahmed, 2016), but has recently even considered it among university students (Bauman & Baldasare, 2015; Whittaker & Kowalski, 2015). However, studies into cyberbullying at younger ages in children at primary school are scarce and clearly insufficient (Machimbarrena & Garaigordobil, 2017; Fernández, Félix & Ruiz, 2015). The literature leaves many unanswered questions in this age group. Cyberbullying is an incipient reality for ten-year-old boys and girls. International studies have demonstrated that the digital environments which foster cyberbullying are primarily social networks and online chat groups, but also include email and mobile messaging (Notar, Padgett & Roden, 2013). These are areas that children of this age do not normally frequent. The report by Net Children Go Mobile found that when they are seven, children start using the internet for games and entertainment but not for actual communication (Garmendia, Jiménez, Casado & Mascheroni, 2016) which is where practices of intimidation and aggression can surface. The use of digital technologies for communicative and relational purposes is characteristic of older children. The report underlined that 15% of nine-year- old boys and girls had a profile in a social network, while this percentage rose to 83% among adolescents. In fact, in social networks such as Facebook the average age for creating a profile is around thirteen. On the other hand, the study of the profiles involved in bullying have always focused on psychosocial variables. Studies such as that by Muller, Skues & Wise (2017) approach attachment, the locus of control and coping styles as the psychological variables involved. Recent studies (Chan & Wong, 2019) shows multivariate findings reveal that, to some extent, male and female adolescents shared a similar set of psychosocial risk factors of bullying perpetration, especially in the perpetration of traditional school REMIE – Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 9(2) 173 bullying. The study by Kubiszewski, et al., (2015) incorporated psychosocial variables such as social disintegration. However, there have been very few studies which have looked at school variables associated to the children who suffer bullying and cyberbullying (Ortega-Barón, Buelga & Cava, 2016). Others have studied how bullying affects the school climate and relate intimidation to the generation in victims of the feeling of not belonging at school (Glew, Fan, Katon & Rivara, 2008). Other studies have focused on worse academic results in the victims (Mishna, Cook, Gadalla, Daciuk & Solomon, 2010). Finally, studies that have disaggregated data by gender and interpreted bullying and cyberbullying practices in terms of gender have not been conclusive (Mishna, Khoury-Kassabri, Gadalla & Daciuk, 2012). Some studies have not shown significant gender differences between aggressors or victims (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008), others have found that cyberbullying and traditional bullying are related to boys, not to girls (Erdur-Baker, 2009). Studies such as the one by Navarro, Yubero & Larrañaga (2016) highlight the gender bias in the interpretations which have been made of the results. Essentially, the results have been read along basic gender lines whereby boys inflict harm more physically while girls do so more indirectly. However, research has shown that direct and indirect aggression strategies are common to both boys and girls. Studies have found that girls suffer more from cyberbullying than boys, but girls are also involved in cyberbullying practices (Giménez, Hunter, Durkin, Arnaiz, & Maquilón, 2015). The study of Mishna et al. (2018) uses a feminist lens to explore gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying among children and youth. The findings indicate that while boys’ roles and behaviors were frequently made invisible, girls were typically spotlighted, blamed, and criticized. Gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying were found to be part of a socialization process wherein girls come to expect gender-based aggression, violence, and inequality in their lives. This study argues that “girls’ victimization occurs because they belong to a gendered group that is systematically subordinated. When girls are encouraged to view their victimization as normal, trivial, their fault” (Mishna et al., 2018, p. 17). Jiménez – Multiple Victimization: Bullying & Cyberbullying 174 The objectives of this study are to: 1. Gauge the prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying in Spanish school-children in their fourth year of primary education using a representative population sample and from a gender perspective. 2. Identify groups of victims according to the forms of intimidation (bullying and/or cyberbullying) and intensity of the victimization, detecting profiles of multiple victimization. 3. Find out whether there are significant differences in gender in the groups of victims. 4. Locate school variables associated to the most vulnerable profile, characterizing this from a gender perspective. Material and Methods We conducted a secondary analysis from a data base of fourth-year pupils from the TIMSS 2015 study (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). The secondary studies such as the one we are presenting take certain study variables which were designed for other purposes. Thus, while the main objective of the TIMMS study promoted by the IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement) is to examine academic achievement in maths and sciences, it also gathers extensive information about contextual factors affecting learning, including indicators on bullying and cyberbullying. Participants This study used the data from the Spanish sample of fourth-year primary pupils who completed the questionnaire. A total of 4756 children were involved (48.8% girls and 51.2% boys) with a mean age of 10 years (M= 10.18, SD= .592) from 179 schools. Of these, 77.5% had their own tablet or computer at home (49% girls and 51% boys); 79.7% had an internet connection at home (48.8% girls and 51.2% boys); and 74.5% had their own mobile (50.4% girls and 49.6% boys). REMIE – Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 9(2) 175 Instruments The context questionnaires for students included questions on different aspects of life at school. The contextual variables included some indexes available in the database of the TIMSS 2015. Details on the construction of these indexes, and the items used, can be consulted in the technical report produced for this purpose (Hooper, 2016; Martin et al. 2016). The following measures were considered for this study: - student gen/sex variable (ASBG01), which was question G1 in the questionnaire: ‘Are you a girl or a boy?’ - school absenteeism variable (ASBG08), had four response options to question G8: ‘About how often are you absent from school?’ ‘Once a week or more’, ‘Once every two weeks’, ‘Once a month’, ‘Never or almost never’. - sense of belonging at school/idx variable (ASDGSSB). This refers to how students feel about their school and their relationship with the school community. This index comes from the seven response items to question G11 in the questionnaire: ‘What do you think about your school? Tell how much you agree with these statements.’ The items include: ‘I feel like I belong at this school’, ‘I am proud to go to this school’, or ‘I feel safe when I am at school’. The measurement scale ranges from 1, ‘Agree a lot’ to 4=’Disagree a lot’. The index has three modalities: ‘high feeling of belonging’, ‘feeling of belonging at school’ and ‘low feeling of belonging at school’. - confidence of the student in maths/idx variable (ASDGSCM). This index comes from 9 response items to question MS3 in the questionnaire: How much do you agree with these statements about mathematics? Items include: ‘I usually do well in mathematics’, ‘Mathematics makes me nervous’, ‘I learn things quickly in mathematics’. The measurement scale ranges from 1=’Agree a lot’ to 4=’disagree a lot’. The constructed index has three modalities: ‘Very confident in maths’, ‘Confident in maths’, ‘Not confident in maths’. Jiménez – Multiple Victimization: Bullying & Cyberbullying 176 - confidence of the student in science/idx variable (ASDGSCS). This index comes from 7 response items to question MS6 in the questionnaire: How much do you agree with these statements about science? Items include: ‘Science makes me confused’, ‘Science is harder for me than any other subject’, or ‘I am just not good at science’. The scale ranges from 1=’Agree a lot’ to 4=’Disagree a lot’. The index has three modalities: “Very confident in science’, ‘Confident in science’, ‘Not confident in science’. - bullying and cyberbullying/idx variable (ASDGSB). This index measures victimization and is constructed from 8 response items to question G12: During this school year, how often have other students from your school done any of the following things to you (including through texting or the Internet)? Items include ‘Shared embarrassing information about me’, ‘Hit or hurt me (e.g., shoving, hitting, kicking)’. The scale ranges from 1=’At least once a week’ to 4=’Never’. The index has three modalities: ‘Never or hardly ever’, ‘Monthly’ and ‘Weekly’. Analysis and results We conducted descriptive analyses to assess the structure and distribution of the main variables involved and drew up contingency tables to establish differences in the prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying according to student gender. We also performed a cluster analysis to identify groups of students who suffered bullying and cyberbullying, determining the extent to which these two forms of intimidation overlap and concurred with different degrees of intensity in each profile. We used an ANOVA to gauge whether there were significant differences between these profiles. Finally, the multiple correspondence analysis allowed us to associate variables characterizing the most vulnerable group of students according to gender. We analysed the data using version 24 of the SPSS statistical package. REMIE – Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 9(2) 183 Table 3. School variables of the most vulnerable groups according to gender School variables Modalities %Girl %Boy %Tot al Educational inclusion School absenteeism Once a week or more 44.3 65.7 19.7 Once every two weeks 37.9 62.1 9.4 Once a month 26.7 73.3 9.7 Never or hardly ever 45.3 54.7 61.3 Feeling of belonging at school High feeling of belonging 49 51 48.9 Feeling of belonging 35.1 64.9 35.5 Low feeling of belonging 36.7 63.3 15.7 Predisposition towards STEM Confidence in maths Very confident in maths 42.6 57.4 15.3 Confident in maths 41.5 58.5 34.5 Not confident in maths 42.2 57.8 50.2 Confidence in science Very confident in science 46.8 53.2 15.8 Confident in science 41.7 58.3 34.6 Not confident in science 40.5 59.5 49.7 Jiménez – Multiple Victimization: Bullying & Cyberbullying 184 Figure 4. Perceptual map of associated school variables Discussion and conclusions The results showed a prevalence of 38.3% of bullying and cyberbullying in primary education in Spain, with this prevalence being greater amongst boys than girls. The prevalence of multiple victimization was 14.52% in ten-year- old children (where it was also higher among boys). It is difficult to compare this study with others in terms of general prevalence because either their data came from secondary school students (Calmaestra et al., 2016), or was obtained from primary school samples which were small, local and/or regional (González, Prendes & Espinosa, 2016) or they are now out of date REMIE – Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 9(2) 185 (Garaigordobil, 2011). The figure for prevalence is always going to be very dynamic and depend on a variety of factors such as the penetration or usage of technologies, hence it is subject to constant evolution and change. Measurements of bullying and cyberbullying used in research may be giving inconsistent results both in prevalence and in gender differences (Slonje & Smith, 2008). We know that measurements of bullying and cyberbullying are not gender sensitive because they do not incorporate what is understood as harassing behaviour by each gender (Navarro, 2016). In adolescent students, studies (Giménez, et al., 2015; Macaulay, Boulton & Betts 2018) have shown that girls are victims of cyberbullying to a greater degree; in contrast, boys are involved as victims and aggressors to a greater extent. Our study placed primary boys in a clear multiple victimization profile compared to girls. However, in traditional school bullying, in percentage terms, girls exceed boys as victims. This finding coincides with other studies (Del Rey, et al., 2012). Studies that show girls being victims more than boys are with samples of adolescents where online intimidatory practices are clearly demarcated and close to intimate partner violence and gender violence (Donoso, Rubio, Velasco & Vila, 2014). The findings of other very current studies in adolescents (Chan & Wong, 2019) indicate that the perpetration of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying behaviors are positively correlated, and male adolescents reported higher levels of bullying perpetration than female adolescents. Delgado y Escortell (2018) indicate that girls are significantly more victimized than boys and score higher on five victimizing behaviors. The objective of this study is to analyze the differences in cyberbullying (victims, bullies, and bystanders) according to the sex and grade of the participants. The sample consisted of students of primary education. In terms of age, the practice of digital bullying has been well identified and documented in students aged 14 to 18, but not in children aged 9 to 12 who are just initiating communications and relations in digital surroundings. That is why research needs to delimit intimidatory practices via digital technologies in a more age sensitive manner. To this, we need to add the level of awareness of cyberbullying related behaviours (Akbaba, Peker, Eroğlu & Yaman, 2015). Jiménez – Multiple Victimization: Bullying & Cyberbullying 186 The results from this study delimit two profiles in which traditional bullying and cyberbullying overlap in victims. This highlights the existence of multiple victimization at an early age. Controversy in current research about measurements of school bullying and cyberbullying stems from studies which adopt a different approach to construct measurement (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013). For Erdur-Baker (2010), cyberbullying and traditional intimidation share some points in common, but cyberbullying has its own identity. Notar, et al. (2013) point to the overlapping between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, being forms of intimidation which coincide and overlap. The study by Modecki, Minchin, Harbaugh, Guerra & Runions (2014) highlighted that traditional bullying and cyberbullying correlate closely, showing that those involved in these practices participate in a multiple aggression. In contrast, the study by Kubiszewski et al. (2015), showed that students involved in cyberbullying and students involved in school bullying belonged to different groups. This analysis inferred that cyberbullying was not an extension of school bullying. As Ortega et al. (2012) states, these controversies underline the complexity of the study phenomena. It may be an error to apply the same unit of measurement to categories of traditional bullying and cyberbullying especially at ages at which they are starting to use digital technologies, particularly when research has still not established the factorial structure of the construct of cyberbullying Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner (2014) argue that more work is needed to gain a better understanding of the dimensional structure of cyberbullying. Although studies have found that aggressors make victims feel that they do not belong (Glew, et al., 2008), no previous studies have explored these differences in terms of gender. We found that boy victims of multiple victimization were more exposed to school exclusion, because of having a lower feeling of belonging at school and having a higher level of absenteeism. In girl victims of multiple harassment, there was no school absenteeism and the feeling of belonging at school was high. These findings would seem to indicate that girls have more assertive coping strategies or may be more inclined to ask for help; some victims may even be unaffected in line with the results of Ortega et al. (2012). REMIE – Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 9(2) 187 The impact of bullying on results at school has been studied (Mishna et al., 2010), but this is not the case with confidence in STEM subjects amongst the most intimidated students. This prevents educational action being taken, despite these subjects being crucial from a gender perspective in terms of a future professional career. Neglect of these areas, particularly in this group of students, can be added to other factors leaving them in a situation of complete academic vulnerability. To this can be added school absenteeism, which is much more prevalent amongst boy victims, and the risks of entering a digital world which is novel from a relational point of view. Marín, Hoyos & Sierra (2019) show that the risk and protective factors are related to the use of the Internet and information and communication technologies, family, social, psychological and individual aspects. To conclude, we believe that studies published thus far on bullying and cyberbullying fall short of providing a response to this social and educational challenge, due to the wide range of measurements and their lack of sensitivity to gender and age. Research is needed with alternative research methodologies to allow us to build adequate educational knowledge for this reality from the perspective of the student involved. In this sense, it is clear that the field of study needs to be widened together with recognition that inter-peer aggression must be analysed from an ecological perspective (De la Caba & López, 2013). The incorporation of academic variables to the study will also provide a greater number of keys for designing intervention programmes that are more likely to be satisfactory. Some interventions are helping to improve this reality. Some of the programs that are being carried out in our schools, and that specifically address the different forms of harassment are among others Cyberprogram 2.0 (Garaigordobil y Martínez-Valderrey, 2014) and ConRed Program (Del Rey, Casas y Ortega, 2012). The study (Garaigordobil y Martínez-Valderrey, 2014) was to assess experimentally the effects of an antibullying program (Cyberprogram 2.0) on behaviors of victimization due to «face-to-face» bullying and on diverse social behaviors. The intervention significantly decreased some negative social behaviors to a greater extent in females, although in the remaining variables, the change was similar both sexes. Jiménez – Multiple Victimization: Bullying & Cyberbullying 188 The ConRed Program (Del Rey, Casas y Ortega, 2012) is based on the theory of normative social behavior and aims to reduce problems such as cyber-bullying and addiction to the Internet and refocus the misadjusted perception of information control in the social networks in order to promote their use in a more beneficial way. The ConRed Program has been evaluated using a quasi-experimental methodology. According to the authors, the study shows evidence of the program’s validity, and show that by working and collaborating with the whole educational community it is possible to improve the quality of the life of adolescents. The findings of this study may have important implications for practice in regard to minimizing, if not entirely preventing, through the joint efforts of the school the propensity of scholars to engage in the perpetration of bullying behaviors. References Akbaba, S., Peker, A., Eroğlu, Y., & Yaman, E. (2015). Cross-gender equivalence of cyber bullying and victimization. Participatory Educational Research, 2(2), 59-69. doi:10.17275/per.15.15.2.2 Bauman, S., & Baldasare, A. (2015). Cyber aggression among college students: Demographic differences, predictors of distress, and the role of the university. Journal of College Student Development, 56(4), 317- 330. doi:10.1353/csd.2015.0039 Calmaestra, J. Escorial, A., García, P., del Moral, C., Perazzo, C., & Ubrich, T. (2016). Yo a eso no juego. Bullying y ciberbullying en la infancia. España: Save the Children. Retrieved from https://www.savethechildren.es/sites/default/files/imce/docs/yo_a_es o_no_juego.pdf Chan, H. Ch. & Wong, D. (2019). Traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration: Examining the psychosocial characteristics of Hong Kong male and female adolescents. Youth & Society, 51(1), 3-29. doi:10.1177/0044118X16658053 De La Caba, M. Á., & López, R. (2013). La agresión entre iguales en la era digital: Estrategias de afrontamiento de los estudiantes del último ciclo REMIE – Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 9(2) 189 de primaria y del primero de secundaria. Revista de Educación, 362, 247-272. doi:10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2011-362-160 Del Rey, R., Casas, J. & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2012). The ConRed Program, an Evidence-based Practice. Comunicar, 39, 129-138. doi:10.3916/C39- 2012-03-03 Del Rey, R., Elipe, P., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2012). Bullying and cyberbullying: Overlapping and predictive value of the co-occurrence. Psicothema, 24(4), 608-613. doi:10.3916/c39-2012-03-03 Delgado, B. & Escortell, R. (2018). Sex and grade differences in cyberbullying of spanish students of 5th and 6th grade of Primary Education. Annals of Psychology, 34(3), 472-481. doi:10.6018/analesps.34.3.283871 Donoso, T., Rubio, M. J., Velasco, A. y Vilà, R. (2014). Ciberacoso en función del género: Propuestas de análisis. Ponencia presentada a V Congreso Universitario Internacional Investigación y Género, Sevilla. Erdur-Baker, O. (2009). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12(1), 109-125. doi:10.1177/1461444809341260 Fernández, C. M. G, Félix, E. M. R, & Ruiz, R. O. (2015). Factores explicativos del hostigamiento cara a cara y el ciberacoso en una muestra de alumnos de primaria. Psicothema, 27(4), 347-353.doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.35 Garaigordobil, M. (2011). Prevalencia y consecuencias del cyberbullying: Una revisión. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 11(2), 233-254. Garaigordobil, M., Martínez, V., & Machimbarrena, J. M. (2014). Intervención en el bullying y cyberbullying: Evaluación del caso Martín. Revista de Psicología Clínica con Niños y Adolescentes, 4(1), 25-32. Retrieved from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5789316.pdf Garmendia, M. Jiménez, E., Casado, M.A., & Mascheroni, G. (2016). Net Children Go Mobile: Riesgos y oportunidades en internet y el uso de Jiménez – Multiple Victimization: Bullying & Cyberbullying 190 dispositivos móviles entre menores españoles (2010-2015). Madrid: Red.es, Universidad del País Vasco and Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Giménez, A. M., Hunter, S. C., Durkin, K., Arnaiz, P., & Maquilón, J.J. (2015). The emotional impact of cyberbullying: Differences in perceptions and experiences as a function of role. Computers & Education, 82, 228-235. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.013 Glew, G. M., Fan, M., Katon, W., & Rivara, F. P. (2008). Bullying and school safety. The Journal of Pediatrics, 152(1), 123-128. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.05.045 González, V., Prendes, Mª P., & Espinosa, J. A. (2016). Víctimas de ciberacoso: Estudio descriptivo en la Región de Murcia. In R. Roig- Vila (Coord.), Tecnología, innovación e investigación en los procesos de enseñanza (pp. 1661-1669). Barcelona: Octaedro. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 1–29. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 711-722. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9902-4 Hooper, M. (2016). Developing the TIMSS 2015 context questionnaires. In M. O. Martin, I. V. S. Mullis, & M. Hooper (Eds,). Methods and Procedures in TIMSS 2015 (pp. 2.1-2.8). Retrieved from: http://timss.bc.edu/publications/timss/2015-methods/chapter-2.html Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073-1137. doi:10.10 37/a0035618 Kubiszewski, V., Fontaine, R., Potard, C., & Auzoult, L. (2015). Does cyberbullying overlap with school bullying when taking modality of involvement into account? Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 49-57. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.049 Macaulay, P. J., Boulton, M. J., & Betts, L. R. (2018). Comparison of the positive responses of primitive adolescents to cyberbullying and traditional bullying: the impact of gravity and gender. Journal of REMIE – Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 9(2) 191 Technology in Behavioral Science, 1-9. doi:10.1007/s41347-018- 0082-2 Machimbarrena, J. M., & Garaigordobil, M. (2017). Bullying/cyberbullying en quinto y sexto curso de primaria: Diferencias entre centros públicos y privados. Anales de Psicología, 33(2), 319-326. doi: 10.6018/analesps.33.2.249381 Maquilón, J. J., Giménez, A. M., Hernández, F., & García, A. (2011). La victimización en las dinámicas de ciberbullying en centros educativos de la región de Murcia. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 2(1), 265-276. Retrieved from: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=349832329026 Marín, A. F., Hoyos, O. L. & Sierra, A. (2019). Risks and protective factors related to cyberbullying among adolescents: A systematic review. Psychologist Papers, Online advance publication. doi:10.23923/pap.psicol2019.2899 Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Hooper, M., Yin. L., Foy, P., & Palazzo, L. (2016). Creating and Interpreting the TIMSS 2015 Context Questionnaire Scales. In M.O. Martin, I.V.S. Mullis, & M. Hooper (Eds.). Methods and Procedures in TIMSS 2015 (pp. 15.1-15.312). Retrieved from: http://timss.bc.edu/publications/timss/2015- methods/chapter-15.html Mishna, F., Schwan, K. J., Birze, A., Van Wert, M., Lacombe-Duncan, A., McInroy, L., & Attar-Schwartz, S. (2018). Sexist and sexualized intimidation and cyberbullying: highlight girls and make children invisible. Youth and Society, 1-24. doi: 10.1177/0044118X18757150 Mishna, F., Cook, C., Gadalla, T., Daciuk, J., & Solomon, S. (2010). Cyber bullying behaviours among middle and high school students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 362-374. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01040.x Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602-611. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007 Muller, R. D., Skues, J. L., & Wise, L. Z. (2017). Cyberbullying in australian primary schools: How victims differ in attachment, locus of control, Jiménez – Multiple Victimization: Bullying & Cyberbullying 192 self-esteem, and coping styles compared to non-victims. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 27(1), 85-104. doi:10.1017/jgc.2016.5 Navarro, R. (2016). Gender issues and cyberbullying in children and adolescents: From Gender Differences to Gender Identity Measures. In R. Navarro., S. Yubero, & E. Larrañaga (Eds,). Cyberbullying across the globe gender, family, and mental health (pp.35-64). Suiza: Springer. Navarro, R., Yubero, S., & Larrañaga, E. (2016). Cyberbullying across the globe gender, family, and mental health. Suiza: Springer. Notar, C. E., Padgett, S., & Roden, J. (2013). Cyberbullying: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 1-9. doi:10.13189/ujer.2013.010101 Ockerman, M. S., Kramer, C., & Bruno, M. (2014). From the school yard to cyber space: A pilot study of bullying behaviors among middle school students. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 37(6), 1-18. doi:10.1080/19404476.2014.11462109 Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751-780. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516. Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Genta, M. L., Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Smith, P. K., Thompson, F., & Tippett, N. (2012). The emotional impact of bullying and cyberbullying on victims: A european crossnational study. Aggressive Behavior, 38(5), 342-356. doi:10.1002/ab.21440 Ortega-Barón, J., Buelga, S., & Cava, M. J. (2016). The influence of school climate and family climate among adolescent victims of cyberbullying. Comunicar, 24(46), 57-65. doi:10.3916/C46-2016-06 Sentürk, S., & Bayat, S. (2016). Habits of internet use and cyber harassment related opinions of high school students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(5), 1103-1110. doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.040520 Shin, V., Braithwaite, A., & Ahmed, E. (2015). From traditional face- to-face bullying to cyberbullying: Who crosses over? RegNet Research Paper, 75, 1-34. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2601197