Cyberbullying has been described as a type of electronic bullying and has recently been subjected to intense media scrutiny largely due to a number of high profile and tragic cases of teen suicide. Despite the media attention relatively little is known about the nature of cyberbullying. This is, at least in part, due to a lack of theoretical and conceptual clarity and an examination of the similarities and differences between cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying. This paper reviews the limited theoretical and empirical literature addressing both cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying, using some specific examples from a qualitative study for illustration. We compare and contrast individual factors common to cyber and face-to-face bullying. We then examine social information processing factors associated with face-to-face bullying and present a discussion of the similarities and differences that may characterize cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying is usually operationalised as a kind of bullying understood as peer aggression that is intentional and continuous, and involves an aspect of imbalance of power between a victim and a perpetrator or perpetrators. Despite the tool used (new media), cyberbullying often takes place within a traditional group (e.g. school class). However, cyberspace gives Internet users the opportunity to attack other individuals: people known only from the Internet, celebrities, teachers, totally unknown individuals or whole groups of people. Involvement in such actions brings suffering to those victimised as well as potential negative consequences for the perpetrators. This article presents a typology of electronic aggression based on qualitative research data (interviews with teachers and students). The typology was validated in a large quantitative survey on a representative sample of Polish 15-year-olds. The survey gives the prevalence of perpetration of different kinds of electronic aggression, as well as some influencing factors (e.g. gender) and risk and protective factors (attitudes towards school, peer norms, negative relations in the family, norms concerning online behaviour at school/home, pro-aggressive beliefs, level of self-esteem). The need to broaden prevention and intervention measures, and not restrict them to the issue of electronic peer aggression, is discussed.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, higher educational institutions worldwide switched to emergency distance learning in early 2020. The less structured environment of distance learning forced students to regulate their learning and motivation more independently. According to self-determination theory (SDT), satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and social relatedness affects intrinsic motivation, which in turn relates to more active or passive learning behavior. As the social context plays a major role for basic need satisfaction, distance learning may impair basic need satisfaction and thus intrinsic motivation and learning behavior. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between basic need satisfaction and procrastination and persistence in the context of emergency distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in a cross-sectional study. We also investigated the mediating role of intrinsic motivation in this relationship. Furthermore, to test the universal importance of SDT for intrinsic motivation and learning behavior under these circumstances in different countries, we collected data in Europe, Asia and North America. A total of N = 15,462 participants from Albania, Austria, China, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Kosovo, Lithuania, Poland, Malta, North Macedonia, Romania, Sweden, and the US answered questions regarding perceived competence, autonomy, social relatedness, intrinsic motivation, procrastination, persistence, and sociodemographic background. Our results support SDT’s claim of universality regarding the relation between basic psychological need fulfilment, intrinsic motivation, procrastination, and persistence. However, whereas perceived competence had the highest direct effect on procrastination and persistence, social relatedness was mainly influential via intrinsic motivation.

In recently published studies on cyberbullying, students are frequently categorized into distinct (cyber)bully and (cyber)victim clusters based on theoretical assumptions and arbitrary cut-off scores adapted from traditional bullying research. The present study identified involvement classes empirically using latent class analysis (LCA), to compare the classification of cyber- and traditional bullying and to compare LCA and the conventional approach. Participants were 6,260 students (M = 14.8 years, SD = 1.6; 49.1% male) from six European countries. LCA resulted in three classes for cyberbullying and four classes for traditional bullying. Cyber- and traditional bullying differed from each other, as did LCA and the conventional approach. Country, age, and gender differences were found. Implications for the field of traditional and cyberbullying research are discussed.

The purpose of this article is to present the results of the study on the specific aspects of cyberbullying and prevention measures viewed from both the students’ and teachers’ perspectives. Cyberbullying is a severe threat to the individual and social well-being of young people. For this reason, it is important to understand how they perceive the phenomenon of cyberbullying, how they identify its causes, what they think about support, and the preventive measures offered through the lens of their own cyberbullying experiences. The study was conducted in a qualitative research paradigm. Students (N = 55) aged 13–16 from 25 junior high schools located in different regions of (blinded for the review) who had experienced cyberbullying incidents as victims, perpetrators, or bystanders, and their teachers (N = 45) were interviewed. They provided in-depth answers regarding cyberbullying incidents they had experienced and presented their attitudes and interpretations concerning those cases. The raw data were analysed by competent judges who defined a posteriori important categories that were useful for understanding the psychosocial mechanisms of cyberbullying and important dimensions of its prevention. The results proved a clear connection between participation in offline and online peer violence. The analysis of the statements showed that public/private types of cyberbullying involve different psychological and social mechanisms. Our findings confirm the importance of empathy as the buffering factor in cyberbullying perpetration. In addition, the limitations and inadequacy of the support and interventions offered by adults in cyberbullying cases have been emphasised in teens’ testimonies. The results may constitute grounds for formulating recommendations on the prevention of cyberbullying in the school context, taking into account the perspective of all actors involved.