Next Article in Journal
Validation of an Instrument to Measure Natural Science Teachers’ Self-Perception about Implementing STEAM Approach in Pedagogical Practices
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Impact of the Video Game Monité on Exogenous Factors and Resilience against Bullying in Primary Education Students
Previous Article in Journal
Misunderstanding Flight Part 1: A Century of Flight and Lift Education Literature
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis of the Narratives with Characters That Make Ethnic Diversity Visible—Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/educsci13080763
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cyberbullying: Education Research

by
Diana Marín Suelves
1,*,
Ana Rodríguez Guimeráns
2,
Mª Mercedes Romero Rodrigo
1 and
Silvia López Gómez
2
1
Department of Didactics and School Organization, Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Sciences, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain
2
Department of Pedagogy and Learning, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13(8), 763; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080763
Submission received: 5 May 2023 / Revised: 11 July 2023 / Accepted: 19 July 2023 / Published: 25 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Technologies and Digital Narratives in the Education and Development of Children and Adolescents)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Today’s society is characterised by a high degree of digitisation and the use of electronic devices at an increasingly early age. Data from recent studies and news reports from different parts of the world have focused on the malicious use of these devices by some young people to engage in peer-to-peer bullying, now known as cyberbullying. Given the negative impact of exposure to these situations on the health and well-being of children and young people, we felt it was important to analyse the scientific evidence from a dual perspective. To this end, we carried out a bibliometric study of 131 articles selected from the Scopus database using the PRISMA method to quantify the scientific literature in terms of productivity, collaboration, impact and dissemination. In addition, we carried out a content analysis to explore this polyhedral reality further through three main categories. The results made it possible to identify the places, authors, and journals where useful information can be found. We were also able to highlight the need for training for the various educational and social actors and to identify risk factors associated with cyberbullying and the importance of primary prevention.

1. Introduction

For several decades now, situations of violence in the school context have been a matter of concern for school management teams, teachers, families, and the educational community in general. In this sense, the perception of the problem has changed. It has moved from positions of denial or minimisation to others that go beyond mere recognition and are concerned with the prevention of such behaviour. We would like to distinguish between school violence and bullying, the former being a one-off situation aimed at causing some kind of harm, while the latter has a continuity over time, i.e., it is a repeated form of violence [1].
Bullying is not a static and immutable phenomenon, and although exclusion, intimidation, or aggression have always existed, the channels through which they are produced (and reproduced) are becoming increasingly diverse. The concept of bullying, traditionally associated with school violence, has been amplified by technological advances. This has led to new forms of violence, such as the phenomenon of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is repeated and sustained harassment based on intimidation, humiliation, pressure, degradation, or threats using technological devices and the internet—most commonly phone calls, emails, instant messaging tools, and social networking sites [2,3]. It is a multifaceted problem that takes many forms and can affect people of all ages. The field of education and the phenomenon of cyberbullying are, therefore, closely linked and, as detailed below, a significant number of cases involve schoolchildren, making the educational environment a key to prevention, awareness raising, and also to tackling the problem once these behaviours have occurred.
Focusing on the adolescent population, several studies have concurred in pointing out several consequences of cyberbullying, such as a decrease in self-esteem, increased isolation, or distancing from the peer group, anxiety and depression, risk behaviours such as substance use, disorders (sleep, eating, etc.), and even suicidal ideation and behaviour in the most extreme cases [4,5,6]. Three main actors are involved in this type of violence: the bullied, the bully, and the witnesses, whose role as bystanders can either reduce or increase the impact [7,8]. In this sense, negative behaviours in cyberbullying cases range from the most common forms, such as insults, harassment, intimidation and threats, isolation, and slander, to the distribution of images or videos without consent, identity theft, sextortion, grooming, viruses or malware, sharing personal data, or registering on undesired web services [9].
Regarding variables related to cyberbullying situations, there seems to be no clear consensus on gender as a predictor. Although some studies show that girls are more likely to be victims [6,10], later studies were unable to confirm significant differences [11,12]. As for age, we conclude that it is an explanatory variable for differences in bullying behaviour. It would be interesting for schools to consider adapting effective prevention programmes to specific age groups rather than to the gender of the students [12,13,14].
A third important variable is the medium used to perpetrate violence: mobile devices and the internet. According to UNICEF’s study on the impact of technology on adolescents, based on a sample of 41,508 adolescents in Spain, the average age at which adolescents have their first mobile phone is 10.96 years. In terms of connectivity, 98% have Wi-Fi at home and 90.8% go online every day or almost every day. These worrying figures show that 31.5% use the internet for more than 5 h a week, 58.4% sleep with their tablet or mobile phone in their bedroom, and of these, 21.6% are online after midnight every day or almost every day [15]. According to the same study, 2 out of 10 adolescents may be victims of online bullying, a figure the European Commission estimates to be higher, at 3 out of 10 [16]. Sending personal photos and videos of a sexual nature or accepting friend requests from strangers on social networking sites are two factors that increase the likelihood of being bullied both at school and online. Online gambling or problematic gaming, contact with strangers, and even behaviours such as sexting are associated not only with online behaviour but also with cyberbullying [12,17].
Other not insignificant issues that have been addressed in recent literature in relation to cyberbullying are risk behaviours due to overexposure to the internet and intimate partner violence among adolescents. Cyberbullying is related to what we might call traditional bullying, along with problematic internet use, online gaming, and other risk behaviours such as drug use. On the one hand, there is a high probability, over 50%, that adolescent bullies are occasional cyberaggressors [18]. On the other hand, although the literature on addictions and their relationship to cyberbullying is not extensive, recent studies seem to suggest that it often occurs in combination with a number of factors and that the adolescents involved had significantly higher rates of risk behaviours and substance use [19]. It follows that the same adolescents who engage in online violence are more likely to repeat these behaviours in intimate partner relationships [20,21]. In [20], the authors found a link between cyberbullying and the use of social networks by adolescents: “Cyberbullying as gender-based violence generally occurs without physical coincidence, and repetition becomes the most common privacy invasion strategy used by bullies” [21] (p. 4). The danger lies in the seemingly harmless nature of these attitudes. They are generally perceived as a nuisance rather than a situation of control and harassment on the part of adolescents. Consequently, they might end up naturalising behaviours such as checking their mobile devices, controlling their activity and location, sending messages, and requesting photos or videos.
The aim of this work is to answer questions relating to the countries, authors, and journals where we can find information to learn more, discover established networks and the impact of works published on the subject, and study in depth the issues addressed in the papers and the conclusions that will allow specific programmes to be designed based on scientific evidence.

2. Method

This work is framed within phase I of the research project “Digital Teaching Materials in Compulsory Secondary Education. Analysis and proposals for school and socio-family use (Secundari@ Digit@l)”, presented at the 2022 State Subprogram for Knowledge Generation of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. We combine bibliometric analysis and content analysis to delve deeper into the prevalence of cyberbullying.
We conducted a bibliometric analysis in order to quantify the scientific literature produced on cyberbullying in childhood and adolescence. This approach allowed us to identify variables related to productivity, collaboration, impact, and dispersion (Table 1) [22].
We chose the Scopus database because of its size and the quality of the documents it contains [23]. The search included the following combination of terms and Boolean operators: “cyberbullying OR bullying AND technology AND youth OR teenager OR minor OR child”, seen in titles, abstracts or keywords.
The PRISMA method [24], with 4 phases, was used to select the documents that we would then analyse (Figure 1).
A total of 419 documents were retrieved. We applied a number of filters, including publication date (limited to the last ten years) and document type (papers other than literature reviews). We did not consider language or subject restrictions. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 131 papers were selected. The level of inter-coder agreement was high, with a Cohen’s Kappa value of k = 0.81.
The content analysis deepened the research conducted and identified three dimensions of analysis, which emerged from the independent reading of three researchers [25] and are listed in Table 2.

3. Results

3.1. Bibliometric Study

From a bibliometric perspective, we organised the results into variables related to scientific productivity, collaboration, impact, and dispersion.

3.1.1. Productivity

In terms of productivity, we analysed the fields of knowledge that have produced research on cyberbullying. Social sciences (25.8%), psychology (25.8%), and medicine (20.4%) have the most representation, but a quarter of the studies are related to other disciplines such as engineering, humanities, computer science, or others.
As for the evolution over the last decade, the distribution is uneven, with 2019 showing the lowest number of publications on this topic and an upward trend over time (Figure 2).
A total of 40 countries around the world have produced work on this topic (Figure 3), including countries as diverse and distant as Uruguay, the United Arab Emirates, Norway, Portugal, Egypt, and Brazil. The countries with the highest productivity are the United States (40.5%), Spain (13%), and the United Kingdom (9.9%).
Looking at the language chosen for the dissemination of knowledge results, there is a clear predominance of English, which is used in almost all documents (93.1%). However, there are documents written in four other languages: Spanish [27,28,29,30], French [31,32], Portuguese [33,34], and Italian [35].

3.1.2. Collaboration

In terms of the number of authors signing a paper, the field is characterised by a high degree of collaboration. Only 15.3% of papers were signed by a single author. The paper with the highest number of authors is [36], with a total of 12 authors. Table 3 shows the percentages of authorship.
In terms of co-authorship networks, the number of papers signed by authors from the same institution or from the same territory is significant. A smaller proportion of papers are signed by authors from different countries (13.7% of the total). Networks between countries such as the USA and Singapore [37,38] or the USA and Spain in papers such as [39,40] are particularly noteworthy.

3.1.3. Impact

Looking at the cumulative citations for each paper, it is clear that we are analysing a slow citation field. Only 6.9% of the documents have more than 100 citations (Table 4).
Three of these papers have more than 200 citations (Table 5).
As far as producers are concerned, as can be seen in Table 5, there are no major producers, as there is no author with 10 or more publications on the subject of cyberbullying in childhood and adolescence. Names such as K.J. Mitchell or L.M. Jones stand out as medium-sized producers, with six [40,44,45,46,47,48] and five papers respectively [40,44,45,46,47], which have been written jointly.
With regard to the journals with the highest number of papers on this topic and their impact index, the following table shows the key data for journals with at least five papers on cyberbullying (Table 6).

3.1.4. Dispersion

Finally, we analysed the relationship between the number of journals and the number of articles published on the topic. The core group included 14 journals and a total of 43 articles (32.8%).

3.2. Content Analysis

The most representative studies are listed below, following the categories identified during the analysis of the 131 documents. The most frequent terms and the relationship between them are shown in Figure 4.

3.2.1. Prevention of Cyberbullying

This category includes studies that attempt to provide programmes, resources, or tools that can help prevent cyberbullying. In general, their work focuses on primary prevention, with interventions aimed at raising awareness and learning about the issue.
This category is further subdivided into the sub-categories listed and described below.

The Role of Technology in Cyberbullying Prevention

One of the general aims of the studies included in this sub-category is to demonstrate how technology can mitigate and counteract cyberbullying. In this regard] uses a web radio project, namely, the Web Radio Associação de Jovens de Irajá (Brazil), within the programme “Em sintonia com a saúde (S@S)”, to understand the knowledge and information that young people in public schools have about cyberbullying [49]. This research highlights participants’ questions about the consequences of cyberbullying and the psychological problems suffered by victims. They also showed a desire to learn more about support strategies and an interest in finding out whether there are laws in place to tackle this type of violence. The authors emphasise the importance of dialogue-based communication and discussion, as well as education outside of health centres.
In line with the concerns of participants in the previous study, other studies addresses online harassment, stalking or bullying, and encourages the development of technologies to prevent and counter anti-social behaviour [50]. Examples include voice recognition methods to verify the identity of callers, automated methods to classify attacks, filtering of unwanted communications, etc.
Similarly, other publicacions highlights the need for personalised support systems to solve bullying problems [36]. The paper explores different sensors and social web technologies to enhance the safety and well-being of children and adolescents.

Analysis of Prevention Programmes and Tools

The sample also includes studies evaluating educational programmes and technological prevention tools to determine their effectiveness. In this context, four schools in a town in New England (USA) participated a project (quasi-experimental study) called Screenshots, designed to develop positive digital social skills and achieved positive results [51].
Similar results, which also support the idea that we need this type of intervention, were obtained by [52,53,54,55]. Furthermore, these studies are consistent in using co-creation processes to develop programmes against cyberbullying. For example, the first of themuses participatory methods to involve students in the production of content for a MOOC on digital health [52];the second describes a pilot study co-designed with adolescents to evaluate an intervention using online counselling via chatbots [53]; and finally, the lasts studiesdescribe how a team of educators, researchers, and technologists worked together to develop and evaluate a multimedia bullying prevention experience called Free2B [54,55].
Most of the documents in this category of intervention project evaluation focus on technological solutions. Another example is the work of [56], in which the serious game “Conectado” was evaluated by 257 students between the ages of 12 and 17. “Conectado” is a graphic adventure designed to raise awareness about bullying and cyberbullying in schools.
Also interesting is the study by the authors of [57], whose results contradict hypotheses that confirm the effectiveness of internet filters in protecting adolescents from unpleasant online experiences. The paper evaluates the effectiveness of these tools by interviewing 1030 adolescents aged 12–15 and their primary caregivers and found that internet filters were not effective.

Guidelines and Recommendations

The documents in this category provide recommendations for teachers, families, and research teams that may be useful in developing educational programmes to address bullying and cyberbullying. They provide guidelines based on the results of empirical studies. An example of such work is the research conducted by [58] to understand online conversations about bullying, which helped improve the content and communications on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services StopBullying.gov website. Both refs. [59,60] conducted literature reviews and content analyses of scientific studies to provide recommendations. In the first case, the document included a proposal for an intergenerational group intervention for parents and children with neurodevelopmental disorders. The objective was to protect them from potential online harm. This programme consisted of six weekly sessions of 90 min each, covering the following topics: introduction to digital citizenship; digital citizenship and netiquette basics; protection and safety online; cyberbullying; balancing online and offline activities/screen time and gaming; and digital citizenship contracts and family safety plans.
Recommendations provided in the work by [60] include the need for school management teams, teachers, students, and families to be well informed about cyberbullying through courses and seminars.

3.2.2. Assessment: Cyberbullying Questionnaires and Scales

This category includes papers that validate instruments developed to measure variables related to bullying and cyberbullying. For example, the study by [61] with 1491 Mexican adolescents aimed to analyse the psychometric properties of the Cyberbullying Questionnaire (CBQ), an instrument designed to measure the perpetration and victimisation of bullying through new technologies. Another similar example is the work by [62], who investigated the psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Peer Victimisation Scale (MPVS) and developed different versions to include the assessment of online aggression for perpetrators and victims. They also proposed a revised scale and a new scale: MPVS-Revised and the Multidimensional Peer Bullying Scale.
Among the works in this category, we should also highlight [63], which focused on the development and validation of the Multidimensional Offline and Online Peer Victimisation Scale (MOOPV), which is composed of 20 items and, after analysis, qualified as a very useful, reliable, and valid instrument; so did the analysis of the Olweus Bullying Scale by [64], with equally positive results.
It is worth noting that several research projects have used the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPQ), a 22-item Likert-type instrument designed to be used with adolescents. The ECIPQ measures the frequency of cyberbullying and the level of victimisation associated with this phenomenon [65].

3.2.3. Research on Cyberbullying

In the total sample of publications analysed, we also found publications that focused on different types of research on cyberbullying. They were analysed from different perspectives, focusing on research methodology, provenance, subject of study, etc.
As a result, these publications have been grouped into three sub-categories according to their central research axis: prevalence of the phenomenon, risk factors for cyberbullying, and victims of cyberbullying. These are explained below, based on some of the most representative studies in each of these sub-categories.
In terms of type of research, studies using quantitative methodology, as opposed to qualitative or mixed methodology, stand out. Among the most commonly used data collection instruments in cyberbullying research, questionnaires predominate, followed by a combination of quantitative and qualitative instruments (surveys and interviews), and finally, qualitative instruments (usually focus groups or individual interviews).
The age of the sample tends to be between 10 and 18 years, which corresponds to adolescents.

Prevalence of the Phenomenon

Some of the articles analysed aim to study the prevalence of cyberbullying in our society, focusing on statistical data that help us to understand the reality faced by the different educational agents that accompany young people during adolescence, the period of greatest risk for cyberbullying.
Studies such as [66], which involved a sample of 3188 adolescents aged 12–17, found that 5.2% of the respondents were victims, 4.5% were perpetrators, and 4.3% were both victims and perpetrators, depending on the context. In contrast, another similar study by [67] found that 72.1% of the adolescents interviewed had been involved in at least one cyberbullying situation in the past year. Almost half of them were cybervictims (49.3%), 23.3% were cyberaggressors, and 62.3% were cyberobservers, i.e., people who did not bully the victim directly, but contributed to this type of behaviour and would largely determine the consequences. The same author explained in [68] that victimisation is more common among females than males and that the incidence of cyberbullying varies considerably from one school year to another. Thus, while a higher incidence of “traditional” bullying is found in lower secondary education, cyberbullying is more prevalent in upper secondary education, with a large number of victims of different types of bullying. Among the types of bullying reported by the respondents, the following stand out:
  • Receiving offensive and insulting messages via mobile phone or the internet (27.2%).
  • Receiving anonymous calls to frighten and provoke fear (22.2%).
  • Being subjected to defamation through the internet to discredit (17.3%).
  • Receiving offensive and insulting calls via mobile phone or the internet (16.3%).
  • Being blackmailed or threatened by messages or calls (11.9%).
  • Theft of password to prevent access to accounts (11.4%) [69] (p. 12).
Several articles have examined one particular type of cyberbullying, grooming, which is a form of deception used by an adult on a minor to establish a relationship, usually with the aim of sexual abuse. In the study by [27], a sample of 13,000 participants from different schools showed an incidence rate of grooming of 12.6% in public schools, 8.2% in charter schools, and 8.4% in public schools, mostly by males (20.4%) compared with the number of female groomers (4.2%).

Risk Factors in Cyberbullying

Other research focuses on the main characteristics of victims and perpetrators and identifies a number of characteristics and behaviours that are more likely to be involved in this type of problem.
The different studies analysed seem to agree that the main risk factor for cyberbullying is high participation in online leisure activities, especially social networks and video games. Furthermore, the misuse of networks not only exposes adolescents to becoming potential victims of cyberbullying, but also constitutes the main risk factor for becoming a cyberbully, as “The level of violence observed in the online world reinforces aggressive, violent behaviour in the real world” [69] (p. 7).
This idea is closely related to what is reported in the paper by [70], in which cyberbullying is related to nomophobia. These authors understand nomophobia as the anxiety or nervousness associated with excessive mobile phone use, especially when access to it is restricted for some reason. This phenomenon “has been associated with an increase in cyberbullying behaviour, and both phenomena are associated with dimensions of psychopathology” [71] (p. 8). Thus, dependence on and misuse of electronic devices often go hand in hand with emotional, academic, and behavioural problems and unstable relationships with overly restrictive or, conversely, non-supervising parents, which are the main characteristics shared by both victims and perpetrators [64,72].
Therefore, studies have found that the risk factors of cybervictims and cyberaggressors are similar and that there is an inverse causal relationship between adolescents’ digital literacy and their risk of cyberbullying or cyber-harassment [71]. In terms of the social environment, a good relationship between adolescents and their parents can minimise the risk of cyberbullying, while authoritarian relationships and peer influence can increase it [73].

Victims of Cyberbullying

The final sub-category of cyberbullying research is that of the victims. It provides numerical data, first-person experiences, and some of the main consequences of cyberbullying for the young people who suffer it.
The percentage of cyberbullying victims varies considerably according to gender: 18% of boys are cyberbullied, while the figure rises to 25% for girls, i.e., 1 in 4 adolescent girls report having been cyberbullied. Furthermore, studies show that in most cases victims of cyberbullying are also victims of face-to-face bullying, usually in the school environment [74]. A large number of publications focus on the harassment of LGBTIQ+ people, who are particularly bullied online, usually in a much more severe and violent way, with fatal consequences for the victims [75].
The consequences of these violent situations for cybervictims are varied and directly related to mental health. Studies such as [76,77,78] agree that young people who have experienced cyberbullying are more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress, anxiety, self-esteem problems, self-harm, frustration, academic problems, and depression. All of these have a direct impact on their social and family well-being, and in most cases lead to situations of isolation and, in extreme cases, death.
In these cases, early intervention is essential to stop the bullying and minimise its impact. However, this is difficult because although a few studies, such as [79], show that victims of cyberbullying are likely to tell others about their situation (88%), in most studies the respondents do not do so, fearing the repercussions and possible complications. Surprisingly, one of these complications was the fear of their parents’ reactions; more specifically, they were afraid that their parents would restrict their use of the internet. In short, “technology has enabled bullies to bypass the watchful eyes of parents and educators and has given them a more direct access to their victims” [77] (p. 72).
As a result, those affected tend to seek other forms of support that they perceive as less complicated, as shown in [80], where LGBTIQ+ victims narrate their experiences of harassment through YouTube videos. They express their feelings, make their situation more visible, and are more likely to seek support from other people who can empathise with what they are going through.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Based on a combination of bibliometrics and content analysis, this work has made it possible to identify key authors, countries, and journals and to learn more about the phenomenon of cyberbullying and its consequences.
The results of the bibliometric analysis show that the growth of scientific information on this topic is limited. This is justified by the fact that the concept of cyberbullying is relatively new, as can be seen from the number of papers published in the last decade, which is just over one hundred.
We did not identify any major producers, and the distribution of publications in concentric zones of productivity is divided into a well-differentiated core, in line with previous work such as [81]. As in prior studies, we observed a predominance of the fields of social sciences, psychology, and medicine [82], the weight of the USA as a reference country, and English as a vehicular language [83]. The journal Computers in Human Behavior has published the highest number of papers on cyberbullying. The degree of collaboration between authors is high and intra-institutional or intra-national networks are most common [84], while the impact of publications is low [85].
With regard to the content analysis of the papers, a large number of research studies focus on the topic in question using quantitative methods, and the main instruments are questionnaires, with the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPQ) standing out, both in terms of application and in terms of papers testing its validity.
The main risk factors associated with cyberbullying are a high level of exposure to technology (and especially to violent content), including through social networks and video games. The use of digital devices can be so intense that alarming situations of dependency are often encountered [86].
In terms of the prevalence of the phenomenon, we found that it affects almost half of teenagers between the ages of 12 and 18, and that females and members of the LGBTIQ+ community are more likely to be affected. Another observation is that victims of online bullying tend to also be bullied in person [74]. In this line, we found a great reluctance to tell adults—and even peers—about the bullying situation, which significantly hinders intervention and treatment of the cause and its consequences.
The results, therefore, reinforce the idea that it is important to educate teachers, families, students, and society as a whole about the warning signs of victims. Society also needs to focus on the behaviour of the aggressors themselves in order to reduce the prevalence of this phenomenon and the potential consequences of this type of bullying among young people.
One of the keys to educational intervention in this area is the digital literacy of children and adolescents, both at school and in the family context. Such interventions must promote more responsible use of technologies and raise awareness of online risks [87].
Furthermore, there are several trends in the literature on cyberbullying prevention related to the analysis of technological tools designed to assist in detection and prevention.
In view of the results, our proposal is to address not only the victims of cyberbullying but the entire adolescent population, as well as other educational agents, including families and the immediate environment. To this end, it is important to design and implement training and prevention programmes in schools and other institutions (city councils, health centres, socio-cultural centres, etc.). These programmes should not be limited to specific actions but should aim to reduce risks and provide tools and strategies for prevention and coping.
The main limitation of our work is the fact that we used only one database, Scopus, to identify the documents. Scopus was chosen because of its recognised prestige and the number of documents deposited in it.
Therefore, future lines of research should include carrying out analyses using other databases or limiting the analysis to specific contexts, focusing on a particular territory. It would also be useful to analyse specific intervention programmes in order to establish guidelines for action based on scientific evidence. This would allow for the design of cyberbullying prevention programmes that revolve around axes such as media literacy for a more responsible use of social networks, mediation and peaceful conflict resolution, and emotional intelligence.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.R.R.; software and validation, D.M.S., A.R.G. and S.L.G.; formal analysis and data curation, D.M.S., A.R.G. and S.L.G.; results and conclusion, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, D.M.S., M.M.R.R., A.R.G. and S.L.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is part of Phase I of the research project “Digital Teaching Materials in Compulsory Secondary Education. Analysis and proposals for school and socio-family use (Secundari@ Digit@l)”, presented at the 2022 State Subprogram for Knowledge Generation of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation; and has been translated with funding from the Department of Education and Didactics and School Organization of the Universitat de València.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the authors and can be provided upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Serrano, A.; Iborra, I. Informe. Violencia entre Compañeros en la Escuela. Centro Reina Sofía para el Estudio de la Violencia. 2005. Available online: https://convivencia.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/informe_reina_sofia-violencia200594p.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2023).
  2. Bauman, S.; Cross, D.; Walker, J.L. Principles of Cyberbullying Research: Definitions, Measures, and Methodology, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sánchez, L.; Crespo, G.; Aguilar, R.; Bueno, F.J.; Aleixandre, R.; Valderrama, J.C. Los Adolescentes y el Ciberacoso. Plan Municipal de Drogodependencias. Unitat de Prevenció Comunitaria de Conductes Adictives (UPCCA-Valencia). 2016. Available online: http://www.codajic.org/sites/default/files/sites/www.codajic.org/files/Los_Adolescentes_y_el_Ciberacoso.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2023).
  4. Camerini, A.L.; Marciano, L.; Carrara, A.; Schulz, P.J. Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among children and adolescents: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 49, 101362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. John, A.; Glendenning, A.C.; Marchant, A.; Montgomery, P.; Stewart, A.; Wood, S.; Hawton, K. Self-harm, suicidal behaviours, and cyberbullying in children and young people: Systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Larrota, K.; Esteban, R.; Ariza, Y.; Redondo, J.; Luzarzo, M. Ideación suicida en una muestra de jóvenes víctimas de cyberbullying. Psicoespacios Rev. Virtual Inst. Univ. Envigado 2018, 12, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Quintana, D.A.; Tanori, J.; Grubits, H.B.; Vera, J.A. Percepciones del Ciberacoso, el Rol Espectador. In Violência, Gênero e Populações Vulneráveis, 1st ed.; Grubits, S., Oliveira, E., Vera, J.A., Eds.; Editora UCDB—Universidade Católica Dom Bosco: Campo Grande, Brasil, 2021; pp. 375–387. [Google Scholar]
  8. Marín, A.; Franco, S.; Betancur, E.; Vélez, V. Miedo y tristeza en adolescentes espectadores de cyberbullying. Vulneración de la salud mental en la era digital. Rev. Virtual Univ. Católica Norte 2020, 61, 66–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Subdirección General de Cooperación Territorial e Innovación Educativa. Informe del curso 2020–2021. Servicio de Atención Telefónica de Casos de Malos Tratos y Acoso en el Ámbito de los Centros Docentes del Sistema Educativo Español 2021, Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. Available online: https://sede.educacion.gob.es/publiventa/d/26042/19/0 (accessed on 8 March 2023).
  10. Delgado, B.; Escortell, R. Sex and grade differences in cyberbullying of Spanish students of 5th and 6th grade of Primary Education. An. Psicol. 2018, 34, 472–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Delgado, B.; Escortell, R.; Martínez-Monteagudo, M.; Ferrández-Ferrer, A.; Sanmartín, R. Cyberbullying, Self-concept and Academic Goals in Childhood. Span. J. Psychol. 2019, 22, E46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Feijóo, S.; O’Higgins-Norman, J.; Foody, M.; Pichel, R.; Braña, T.; Varela, J.; Rial, A. Sex Differences in Adolescent Bullying Behaviours. Psychosoc. Interv. 2021, 30, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pichel, R.; Foody, M.; O’Higgins-Norman, J.; Feijóo, S.; Varela, J.; Rial, A. Bullying, Cyberbullying and the Overlap: What Does Age Have to Do with It? Sustainability 2021, 13, 8527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bolognesi, A.; Bukhalovskaya, A. Arquitecturas tecnológico-didácticas para la construcción de aprendizajes felices, productivos y exitosos. Etic@Net 2022, 22, 216–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. UNICEF, España. Impacto de la Tecnología en la Adolescencia. Relaciones, Riesgos y Oportunidades 2021, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela y Consejo General de Colegios Profesionales de Ingeniería en Informática. Available online: https://www.unicef.es/publicacion/impacto-de-la-tecnologia-en-la-adolescencia (accessed on 8 March 2023).
  16. Comisión Europea. Estrategia Europea para una Internet mejor para los niños (BIK+), [infografía]. 2022. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/european-strategy-better-internet-kids-bik-factsheet (accessed on 8 March 2023).
  17. Calvete, E.; Cortazar, N.; Ferández, L.; Echezarraga, A.; Beranuy, M.; León, A.; González, J.; Orue, I. Effects of a brief preventive intervention in cyberbullying and grooming in adolescents. Psychosoc. Interv. 2021, 30, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Iranzo, B.; Ortega, J.; Carrascosa, I.; Clemente, J.A. Ajuste psicosocial de adolescentes agresores a través del teléfono móvil y de internet. Int. J. Dev. Educ. Psychol. Rev. Infad Psicol. 2019, 1, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Pichel, R.; Feijóo, S.; Isorna, M.; Varela, J.; Rial, A. Analysis of the relationship between school bullying, cyberbullying, and substance use. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2022, 134, 106369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gabarda, C.; Cuevas, N.; Marti, A.; Rodríguez, A.; Agusti, A.I. Ciberacoso y ciberviolencia de pareja: ¿fenómenos relacionados? Behav. Psychol./Psicol. Conduct. 2021, 29, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Torres, C.; Robles, J.M.; Marco, S. El Ciberacoso como Forma de Ejercer la Violencia de Género en la Juventud: Un Riesgo en la Sociedad de la Información y del Conocimiento 2014, Delegación del Gobierno para la Violencia de Género. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Available online: https://violenciagenero.igualdad.gob.es/violenciaEnCifras/estudios/colecciones/estudio/ciberacoso.htm (accessed on 13 March 2023).
  22. Van Raan, A. Measuring Science: Basic principles and application of advanced bibliometrics. In Springer Handbook of Science of Echnology Indicators; Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., Thelwall, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 237–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hernández-González, V.; Sans-Rosell, N.; Jové-Deltell, M.C.; Reverter-Masia, J. Comparación entre Web of Science y Scopus, estudio bibliométrico de las revistas de anatomía y morfología. Int. J. Morphol. 2016, 34, 1369–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Urrútia, G.; Bonfill, X. Declaración PRISMA: Una propuesta para mejorar la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis. Med. Clínica 2010, 135, 507–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lincoln, Y.S.; Guba, E.G. Naturalistic Inquiry; SAGE: California, CA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  26. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. arXiv 2011, arXiv:1109.2058v1. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cerón, M.A.; Eisman, L.B.; Palomares, F.F. Grooming, cyberbullying and sexting in Chile according of sex and school management or administrative dependency. Rev. Chil. Pediatr. 2018, 89, 352–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. González, B. Cyberbullying at school. Rev. Enferm. 2013, 36, 16–21. [Google Scholar]
  29. Paniagua, H. Impact of information technology and communication. Pediatr. Integr. 2013, 17, 686–693. [Google Scholar]
  30. Paniagua, H. The impact of the screens: Television, computer and videogames. Pediatr. Integr. 2018, 22, 178–186. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cauchie, J.; Corriveau, P. La cyberintimidation à l’épreuve du milieu scolaire québécois: Regards d’intervenants sur l’irruption des nouvelles technologies à l’école. Can. J. Criminol. Crim. Justice 2015, 57, 503–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Verhaeghe, G. School cyber-bullying: A new violence rapidly developing. J. Med. Leg. Droit. Med. 2014, 57, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pereira, M.; Fernandes, O.M.; Relva, I.C. Cyberbullying, suicidal ideation and parent-child communication in adolescents and young adults. Av. Psicol. Latinoam. 2022, 40, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rodríguez-Álvarez, J.M.; Navarro, R.; Yubero, S. Relationship of social integration and leisure experiences with bullying in primary school students. Pedagog. Soc. 2021, 11, 686–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Coluccia, A.; Ferretti, F.; Spacone, D.; Gualtieri, G.; Lorenzi, L.; Carabellese, F.; Buracchi, T.; Masti, A.; Pozza, A. Distinctive features, prevention and intervention strategies on cyberbullying in Italy. Rass. Ital. Criminol. 2021, 15, 30–39. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kinnunen, M.; Ervasti, M.; Jutila, M.; Pantsar, S.; Sesay, A.M.; Pääkkönen, S.; Mäki, M.; Mian, S.Q.; Oinas-Kukkonen, H.; Oduor, M.; et al. Improving the well-being and safety of children with sensors and mobile technology. J. Technol. Hum. Serv. 2016, 34, 359–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Holt, T.J.; Fitzgerald, S.; Bossler, A.M.; Chee, G.; Ng, E. Assessing the risk factors of cyber and mobile phone bullying victimization in a nationally representative sample of singapore youth. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 2016, 60, 598–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Holt, T.J.; Chee, G.; Ng, E.A.H.; Bossler, A.M. Exploring the consequences of bullying victimization in a sample of singapore youth. Int. Crim. Justice Rev. 2013, 23, 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gómez-Galán, J. Media education in the ICT era: Theoretical structure for innovative teaching styles. Information 2020, 11, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mitchell, K.J.; Segura, A.; Jones, L.M.; Turner, H.A. Poly-victimization and peer harassment involvement in a technological world. J. Interpers Violence 2018, 33, 762–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Reisner, S.L.; Greytak, E.A.; Parsons, J.T.; Ybarra, M.L. Gender minority social stress in adolescence: Disparities in adolescent bullying and substance use by gender identity. J. Sex Res. 2015, 52, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Zweig, J.M.; Dank, M.; Yahner, J.; Lachman, P. The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. J. Youth Adolesc. 2013, 42, 1063–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hinduja, S.; Patchin, J.W. Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle and high school students. J. Youth Adolesc. 2013, 42, 711–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mitchell, K.J.; Jones, L.M.; Turner, H.A. Past year technology-involved peer harassment victimization and recent depressive symptoms and suicide ideation among a national sample of youth. J. Interpers Violence 2021, 36, NP1165–NP1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mitchell, K.J.; Jones, L.M.; Turner, H.A.; Shattuck, A.; Wolak, J. The role of technology in peer harassment: Does it amplify harm for youth? Psychol. Violence 2016, 6, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Price-Feeney, M.; Jones, L.M.; Ybarra, M.L.; Mitchell, K.J. The relationship between bias-based peer victimization and depressive symptomatology across sexual and gender identity. Psychol. Violence 2018, 8, 680–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wells, M.; Mitchell, K.J.; Jones, L.M.; Turner, H.A. Peer harassment among youths with different disabilities: Impact of harassment online, in person, and in mixed online and in-person incidents. Child. Sch. 2019, 41, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ybarra, M.L.; Espelage, D.L.; Mitchell, K.J. Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential power and repetition. J. Adolesc. Health 2014, 55, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Abreu, L.D.P.; Torres, R.A.M.; Veras, K.D.C.B.B.; Araújo, A.F.; Costa, I.G.; Oliveira, G.R. Web radio: Educational nursing care technology addressing cyberbullying students’ statements. Rev. Bras. Enferm. 2020, 73, e20180872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Al-Khateeb, H.M.; Epiphaniou, G. How technology can mitigate and counteract cyber-stalking and online grooming. Comput. Fraud Secur. 2016, 1, 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bickham, D.S.; Moukalled, S.; Inyart, H.K.; Zlokower, R. Evaluating a middle-school digital citizenship curriculum (screenshots): Quasi-experimental study. JMIR Ment. Health 2021, 8, e26197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ferri, F.; D’Andrea, A.; D’Ulizia, A.; Grifoni, P. Co-creation of e-learning contenti the case study of a MOOC on health and cyber-bullying. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 2020, 26, 200–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gabrielli, S.; Rizzi, S.; Carbone, S.; Donisi, V. A chatbot-based coaching intervention for adolescents to promote life skills: Pilot study. JMIR Hum. Factors 2020, 7, e16762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Leff, S.S.; Waasdorp, T.E.; Paskewich, B.S.; Bevans, K.B.; Winston, K. The Free2B multi-media bullying prevention experience: An exemplar of scientific edutainment. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Leff, S.S.; Waasdorp, T.E.; Paskewich, B.S.; Winston, F.K. Scaling and disseminating brief bullying prevention programming: Strengths, challenges, and considerations. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 50, 454–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Calvo-Morata, A.; Rotaru, D.C.; Alonso-Fernández, C.; Freire-Morán, M.; Martinez-Ortiz, I.; Fernández-Manjón, B. Validation of a cyberbullying serious game using game analytics. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2020, 13, 186–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Przybylski, A.K.; Nash, V. Internet filtering technology and aversive online experiences in adolescents. J. Pediatr. 2017, 184, 215–219.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Edgerton, E.; Reiney, E.; Mueller, S.; Reicherter, B.; Curtis, K.; Waties, S.; Limber, S.P. Identifying new strategies to assess and promote online health communication and social media outreach: An application in bullying prevention. Health Promot. Pract. 2016, 17, 448–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Good, B.; Fang, L. Promoting smart and safe internet use among children with neurodevelopmental disorders and their parents. Clin. Soc. Work J. 2015, 43, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ozansoy, K. Developing strategies for the prevention of cyberbullying in secondary education. Ponte 2017, 73, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gámez-Guadix, M.; Villa-George, F.; Calvete, E. Psychometric properties of the cyberbullying questionnaire (CBQ) among mexican adolescents. Violence Vict. 2014, 29, 232–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Betts, L.R.; Houston, J.E.; Steer, O.L. Development of the multidimensional peer victimization scale-revised (MPVS-R) and the multidimensional peer bullying scale (MPVS-RB). J. Genet. Psychol. 2015, 176, 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Sumter, S.R.; Valkenburg, P.M.; Baumgartner, S.E.; Peter, J.; Van Der Hof, S. Development and validation of the multidimensional offline and online peer victimization scale. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 46, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Breivik, K.; Olweus, D. An item response theory analysis of the olweus bullying scale. Aggress. Behav. 2015, 41, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Trbojević, F.; Šikuten, L. Prevalence, forms, and predictors of cyberbullying perpetration. [Prevalencija, oblici i prediktori elektroničkog nasilja]. Medijska Istraz. 2022, 28, 133–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Feijóo, S.; Foody, M.; Norman, J.O.; Pichel, R.; Rial, A. Cyberbullies, the cyberbullied, and problematic internet use: Some reasonable similarities. [Ciberacosados, ciberacosadores y uso problemático de internet: Algunos parecidos razonables]. Psicothema 2021, 33, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. González-Calatayud, V.; Prendes-Espinosa, M.P. Role-based cyberbullying situations: Cybervictims, cyberaggressors and cyberbystanders. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. González-Calatayud, V. Victims of cyberbullying in the region of Murcia: A growing reality. J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 2018, 7, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Moro, Á.; Ruiz-Narezo, M.; Fonseca, J. Use of social networks, video games and violent behaviour in adolescence among secondary school students in the basque country. BMC Psychol. 2022, 10, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Catone, G.; Senese, V.P.; Pisano, S.; Siciliano, M.; Russo, K.; Muratori, P.; Broome, M.R. The drawbacks of information and communication technologies: Interplay and psychopathological risk of nomophobia and cyber-bullying, results from the bullying and youth mental health naples study (BYMHNS). Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 113, 106496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tao, S.; Reichert, F.; Law, N.; Rao, N. Digital technology use and cyberbullying among primary school children: Digital literacy and parental mediation as moderators. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2022, 25, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Paez, G.R. Assessing predictors of cyberbullying perpetration among adolescents: The influence of individual factors, attachments, and prior victimization. Int. J. Bullying Prev. 2020, 2, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Sasson, H.; Mesch, G. The role of parental mediation and peer norms on the likelihood of cyberbullying. J. Genet. Psychol. 2017, 178, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Beltrán-Catalán, M.; Zych, I.; Ortega-Ruiz, R.; Llorent, V.J. Victimisation through bullying and cyberbullying: Emotional intelligence, severity of victimisation and technology use in different types of victims. Psicothema 2018, 30, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. de Faria, M.A.; Gomes, M.C.A.; Modena, C.M. “Sea of bullying”: A whirlwind of violence against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transvestites, and transsexuals at school. Educ. Pesqui. 2022, 48, e241630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cénat, J.M.; Hébert, M.; Blais, M.; Lavoie, F.; Guerrier, M.; Derivois, D. Cyberbullying, psychological distress and self-esteem among youth in Quebec schools. J. Affect. Disord. 2014, 169, 7–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Chen, B.; Luppicini, R. The new era of bullying: A phenomenological study of university students’ past experience with cyberbullying. Int. J. Cyber Behav. Psychol. Learn. 2017, 7, 72–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hamby, S.; Blount, Z.; Taylor, E.; Mitchell, K.; Jones, L. The association of different cyber-victimization types with current psychological and health status in southern appalachian communities. Violence Vict. 2021, 36, 251–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Betts, L.R.; Spenser, K.A.; Baguley, T. Describing disclosure of cybervictimization in adolescents from the United Kingdom: The role of age, gender, involvement in cyberbullying, and time spent online. J. Genet. Psychol. 2022, 183, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Green, M.; Bobrowicz, A.; Ang, C.S. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community online: Discussions of bullying and self-disclosure in YouTube videos. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2015, 34, 704–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Marín-Suelves, D.; Esnaola-Horacek, G.; Donato, D. Videojuegos y educación: Análisis de tendencias en investigación. Rev. Colomb. Educ. 2022, 1, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Quintero-Quintero, W.; Arévalo-Ascanio, J.G.; Navarro-Claro, G.T. Acoso escolar: Un análisis bibliométrico. Mundo FESC 2021, 11, 64–77. [Google Scholar]
  83. Stephan, F.; Aparecida, A.; Soares, F.; Xavier, L.; Moura, L. Bullying e aspectos psicossociais: Estudo bibliométrico. Temas Psicol. 2013, 21, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ruíz, C.; Méndez, I.; Martínez, J.P.; Cerezo, F. Análisis bibliométrico de la investigación en cyberbullying en España o junto a otros países. Anu. Psicol./UB J. Psychol. 2020, 50, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Herrera-López, M.; Romera, E.M.; Ortega-Ruiz, R. Bullying y Cyberbullying en Latinoamérica. Un estudio bibliométrico. Rev. Mex. Investig. Educ. 2018, 23, 125–155. [Google Scholar]
  86. López, S.; Rial, A.; Marín-Suelves, D.; Rodríguez, J. Videojuegos, salud, convivencia y adicción: ¿Qué dice la evidencia científica? Psychol. Soc. Educ. 2022, 14, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Digón-Regueiro, P.; Castro, M.M.; Rodríguez, A. Menores influencers y la importancia de una alfabetización mediática crítica. EDMETIC 2023, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 13 00763 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart.
Figure 1. Flowchart.
Education 13 00763 g001
Education 13 00763 g002 550
Figure 2. Temporal distribution of publications.
Figure 2. Temporal distribution of publications.
Education 13 00763 g002
Education 13 00763 g003 550
Figure 3. Number of publications per country.
Figure 3. Number of publications per country.
Education 13 00763 g003
Education 13 00763 g004 550
Figure 4. Co-occurrence map.
Figure 4. Co-occurrence map.
Education 13 00763 g004
Table
Table 1. Bibliometric indicators.
Table 1. Bibliometric indicators.
IndicatorsCategories of Analysis
ProductivityNumber of publications by date, field, country, and language.
CollaborationAuthors and networks.
ImpactNumber of citations, producers, journals, and impact index.
DispersionDistribution by zones.
Table
Table 2. Categories of analysis.
Table 2. Categories of analysis.
CategorySub-Category
Prevention of cyberbullyingThe role of technology; analysis of prevention programmes and tools; and guidelines and recommendations.
Assessment: Cyberbullying questionnaires and scales
Research on cyberbullyingPrevalence; risk factors; victims.
VosViewer [26] was used to represent the data.
Table
Table 3. Number of authors per document.
Table 3. Number of authors per document.
No. of AuthorsNo. of Documents
115.3%
222.1%
322.9%
416.8%
≥522.9%
Table
Table 4. Number of citations per document.
Table 4. Number of citations per document.
No. of CitationsNo. of Documents
015
1–2072
21–4018
41–6014
61–802
81–1001
>1009
Table
Table 5. Key data of the most-cited documents.
Table 5. Key data of the most-cited documents.
PaperJournalNo. of Citations
[41]Journal of Sex Research290
[42]Journal of Youth and Adolescence275
[43]Journal of Youth and Adolescence228
Table
Table 6. Journals with the highest number of papers.
Table 6. Journals with the highest number of papers.
JournalsPapersCumulative CitationsImpact Index
Computers in Human Behavior729141.6
Journal of Interpersonal Violence611819.7
Journal of Youth and Adolescence5790158
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marín Suelves, D.; Rodríguez Guimeráns, A.; Romero Rodrigo, M.M.; López Gómez, S. Cyberbullying: Education Research. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 763. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080763

AMA Style

Marín Suelves D, Rodríguez Guimeráns A, Romero Rodrigo MM, López Gómez S. Cyberbullying: Education Research. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(8):763. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080763

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marín Suelves, Diana, Ana Rodríguez Guimeráns, Mª Mercedes Romero Rodrigo, and Silvia López Gómez. 2023. "Cyberbullying: Education Research" Education Sciences 13, no. 8: 763. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080763

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop