Electronic Victimization: Correlates, Antecedents, and Consequences Among Elementary and Middle School Students

Abstract

We examined the occurrence of electronic-only, traditional-only, and traditional and electronic bullying, and the antecedents and consequences of electronic versus traditional victimization. A large data set including 17,625 students from elementary (Grades 3–5) and middle school (Grades 7–8) was utilized to examine the prevalence of students with diverse victimization profiles. A longitudinal subsample of 7,850 students was used to test hypotheses regarding the antecedents and consequences of electronic victimization when occurring in isolation from traditional forms versus accompanied by them. According to the main findings, (a) the victims of electronic bullying were in most cases bullied in traditional ways as well; (b) being a target of electronic-only victimization was not predicted by either intrapersonal (depression) or interpersonal (low social acceptance) risk factors; and (c) electronic victimization, when occurring in isolation from traditional victimization, did not contribute to increases in depression over time. Electronic victimization is rare, and is almost always accompanied by traditional victimization. It leads to increases in depression only when combined with traditional victimization. Rather than shifting attention from traditional to electronic victimization, educators should continue their efforts on reducing victimization in general.

Acknowledgments

The writing of this study was supported by the Academy of Finland grant (134843) to the first author.

Notes

Note: Correlations for elementary (n = 10,324) and middle school students (n = 7,301) are presented above and below the diagonal, respectively. Means and standard deviations for elementary school students are presented in the horizontal rows, and for middle school students in the vertical columns. Means for the traditional victimization forms ranged between .30 (social manipulation) and .54 (verbal) in elementary school and between .27 (social manipulation) and .47 (verbal) in middle school.

*p < .01. **p < .001.

Note: n = 9,984 and 6,721 among elementary and middle school students, respectively. SA = social acceptance; bully = bully reputation; Dep = depression.

*p < .01. **p < .001.

Note: Nagelkerke pseudo R ² = .17. Nonvictims are used as a reference category.

*p < .01. **p < .001.

¹Analyses in which we treated T2 victimization variables as continuous variables, instead of predicting membership in the four victimization status groups at T2, indicated the following: T1 traditional victimization was predictive of T2 traditional victimization and increases in electronic victimization (the effect of traditional victimization on electronic victimization was stronger at the elementary school level), whereas electronic victimization only predicted subsequent electronic victimization. Lack of social acceptance was predictive of increases in traditional but not of electronic victimization. Bully reputation and depression significantly predicted increases in both types of victimization (the effect of depression on increases in traditional victimization was stronger at the elementary school level). The detailed results of these analyses are available from the first author.

²When victimization variables were treated as continuous, only traditional victimization (besides previous depression) uniquely predicted increases in depression. There was no interactive effect of traditional and electronic victimization. The detailed results are available from the first author.

Note: T1 depression and student sex are used as covariates in the model. NV = nonvictims; T = traditional-only victims; E = electronic-only victims; group differences = which groups differ significantly from each other, based on the confidence intervals (CIs) of the means; T+E = traditional and electronic victims.