Cyberbullying and LGBTQ Youth: A Systematic Literature Review and Recommendations for Prevention and Intervention

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that cyberbullying has adverse physical and mental health consequences for youths. Unfortunately, most studies have focused on heterosexual and cisgender individuals. The scant available research on sexual minority and gender expansive youth (i.e., LGBTQ) shows that this group is at a higher risk for cyberbullying when compared to their heterosexual counterparts. However, to date no literature review has comprehensively explored the effects of cyberbullying on LGBTQ youth. A systematic review resulted in 27 empirical studies that explore the effects of cyberbullying on LGBTQ youth. Findings revealed that the percentage of cyberbullying among LGBTQ youth ranges between 10.5% and 71.3% across studies. Common negative effects of cyberbullying of LGBTQ youth include psychological and emotional (suicidal ideation and attempt, depression, lower self-esteem), behavioral (physical aggression, body image, isolation), and academic performance (lower GPAs). Recommendations and interventions for students, schools, and parents are discussed.

Full text

Author's personal copy
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Cyberbullying and LGBTQ Youth: A Systematic Literature
Review and Recommendations for Prevention and Intervention
Roberto L. Abreu
1
&Maureen C. Kenny
2
#Springer International Publishing AG 2017
Abstract Research has demonstrated that cyberbullying has
adverse physical and mental health consequences for youths.
Unfortunately, most studies have focused on heterosexual and
cisgender individuals. The scant available research on sexual
minority and gender expansive youth (i.e., LGBTQ) shows
that this group is at a higher risk for cyberbullying when com-
pared to their heterosexual counterparts. However, to date no
literature review has comprehensively explored the effects of
cyberbullying on LGBTQ youth. A systematic review result-
ed in 27 empirical studies that explore the effects of
cyberbullying on LGBTQ youth. Findings revealed that the
percentage of cyberbullying among LGBTQ youth ranges be-
tween 10.5% and 71.3% across studies. Common negative
effects of cyberbullying of LGBTQ youth include psycholog-
ical and emotional (suicidal ideation and attempt, depression,
lower self-esteem), behavioral (physical aggression, body im-
age, isolation), and academic performance (lower GPAs).
Recommendations and interventions for students, schools,
and parents are discussed.
Keywords cyberbullying .LGBTyouth .prevalence .
correlates .effects .prevention
Technology has become a conventional and widely used form
of communication among individuals. Youth in particular ap-
pear to be drawn to different forms of technology, and use it
regularly. According to a 2015 study by the Pew Research
Center, 92% of teens go online on a daily basis and 56%
access online material several times a day (Lenhart 2015).
While the Internet provides many benefits (e.g., connecting
with others, vast information), there are risks related to priva-
cy, security, and harassment. Specifically, readily available
access to the Internet has opened the door for a new form of
bullying among youth, commonly known as cyberbullying
(other names include cyber victimization, online victimiza-
tion, and online aggression). Although different definitions
for cyberbullying are found in the literature, researchers have
identified this form of aggression as behaviors performed
through the use of digital media or technology with the goal
of communicating aggression and inflicting harm in an indi-
vidual or a group of people (e.g., Hinduja and Patchin 2014;
Pham and Adesman 2015). Research shows that exposure to
cyberbullying has severe consequences for adolescents’and
young adults’physical and mental health, including academic
problems, substance abuse, and suicide (Flanagan 2014;Pham
and Adesman 2015). A current systematic literature review of
25 empirical studies revealed that a significant number of
children and adolescents (20% - 40%) report being victims
of cyberbullying (Aboujaoude et al. 2015). Cyberbullying
among children and adolescents is a serious threat and collec-
tive efforts headed by schools, policy-makers, and medical
and mental health providers must be put in place in order to
protect youth from the hazards associated with an ever depen-
dent digital world (Aboujaoude et al. 2015).
Specific to sexual and gender minority youth, there is a
dearth of research on the experiences of LGBTQ youth and
cyberbullying. However, extensive research exists on tradition-
al bullying (i.e., face-to-face) of LGBTQ students. This body of
*Roberto L. Abreu
r.abre001@uky.edu
Maureen C. Kenny
kennym@fiu.edu
1
Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology,
College of Education, University of Kentucky, 251 Dickey Hall,
Lexington, KY 40506, USA
2
Leadership and Professional Studies, College of Arts, Science and
Education, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA
Journ Child Adol Trauma
DOI 10.1007/s40653-017-0175-7

Author's personal copy
research shows that LGBTQ youth are being bullied, harassed,
and victimized in schools at disproportionate rates when com-
pared to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts (Black
et al. 2012; Espelage et al. 2015;Kosciwetal.2016). As a
result, LGBTQ students have lower GPAs, higher rates of de-
pression, lower self-esteem, and more suicidal ideation and
suicide attempts (Kosciw et al. 2016; Montoro et al. 2016). In
a national study of sexual minority high school students by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), LGB high
school students reported higher levels of violence and bullying
than their heterosexual counterparts, including forced to have
sex (17.8% vs. 5.4%) and experiences of bullying at school
(34.5% vs. 18.5%; Kann et al. 2016).
Regarding the experiences of cyberbullying, Aboujaoude
et al. (2015) and Zych et al. (2015) found that sexual minorities
are among one of the most vulnerable populations. Another
systematic literature review of 39 empirical studies on the psy-
chological and health outcomes of sexual minority and gender
expansive youth revealed that victimization related to sexual
identity is linked to increased depressive symptoms, suicidality,
and substance abuse (Collier et al. 2013). Although
cyberbullying has been briefly mentioned in reviews that ex-
plore the victimization of sexual minority and gender expansive
youth and sexual minorities have been mentioned as a popula-
tion of interest in cyberbullying youth literature reviews, to date
no systematic literature review has exclusively explored the
correlates of cyberbullying on LGBTQ youth. That is, the au-
thors were not able to locate a single systematic literature that
has brought together all of the available empirical research on
LGBTQ youth cyberbullying. Therefore, the aim of the present
review is to provide a comprehensive and integrative review of
cyberbullying among sexual minority and gender expansive
youth, including prevalence, correlates, and recommendations
for prevention and intervention.
Methods
Search Strategy
The authors conducted a computer-based search of the data-
bases Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, PubMed, and
Web of Science to locate studies. Variations of the term
cyberbullying (i.e., cyberbullying, cyber-bullying, online
bulling, cyber aggression, cyber violence, and online victim-
ization) were used in combination with keywords related to
sexual and/or gender identity (i.e., LGBT, GLBT, LGB, GLB,
GLBTQ, gay, homosexuality, male homosexuality, bisexuali-
ty, lesbianism, transgender, sexual orientation, sexual identity,
and sexual minority). In order to make sure the search led to
exhaustive results, keywords related to bullies’potential mo-
tives (i.e., homophobia, homophobic, biphobia, and
transphobia) were also used in combination with variations
of the term cyberbullying. In addition, a search of victims’
characteristics (i.e., gender expression, gender identity, femi-
nine, femininity, masculine, masculinity, gender atypical, gen-
der bending, gender incongruence) was used in combination
with variations of the term cyberbullying.
Considering the lack of research in the area of cyberbullying
and LGBTQ individuals (Evans and Smokowski 2016), in the
initial search, the authors did not narrow their search to a specific
country, setting, or developmental age, to intentionally find all
studies that captured the experience of cyberbullying among
LGBTQ people before creating any inclusion and exclusion
criteria. However, all of the studies found were conducted with
LGBTQ adolescents, with school settings ranging from middle
school to college/university level, with most studies (n= 22)
including middle and high school students. In addition to the
database search, a second method for literature searching includ-
ed an ancestral approach (White 1994),whichentailedreviewing
the reference lists of each selected article to identify additional
studies for possible inclusion. The search was conducted during
the months of August 2016 through March 2017, and no time
parameters were used. Duplicate publications were excluded.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion criteria included studies that were: (a) empirically
based; (b) report original research findings (this included
school climate surveys); (c) conducted among LGBTQ (or
other sexual or gender minorities) youth; (d) explored
cyberbullying toward LGBTQ adolescents in any setting;
and (e) explored prevalence, correlates, consequences (includ-
ing physical and psychological), and/or prevention efforts/
recommendations in relation to LGBTQ youth cyberbullying.
Both authors reviewed the abstracts of all citations produced
by the database search and conducted ancestral approach to
determine which citations met these criteria. Considering we
were not able to locate any previously published literature
review specific to LGBTQ youth and cyberbullying, we did
not have a criterion for time frame (e.g., publications on and/or
after a certain year). It was the authors’intention to capture all
of the current available empirical research on the experiences
of cyberbullying among LGBTQ youth. Exclusion criteria
included articles that: (a) did not assess for cyberbullying
(i.e., studies that only reported on traditional bullying, or
face-to-face) or (b) did not assess for sexual or gender identity
of participants. It is important to note that not all selected
studies included exclusive samples of LGBTQ participants.
Over half of studies (n= 14) included a large sample (i.e.,
over 70%) of heterosexual participants. We included any
study that reported on the experiences of cyberbullying among
LGBTQ youth participants, regardless if the study’ssample
also included heterosexual and/or cisgender participants. For
those studies that included a mixed sample of heterosexual
and cisgender and LGBTQ participants, we focused on the
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
results and analysis that, in any way, involved LGBTQ youth.
As a result of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 27 studies
were included in the review. After each author was done
with their individual review of each article (documented
in a table form), tables were exchanged and reviewed
for discrepancies. Discrepancies were discussed and rec-
onciled among both authors.
Results of Literature Review
The studies were conducted in the United States (n= 19),
Canada (n= 3), Australia (n= 3), Sweden (n=1),and
United Kingdom (n= 1). Most of the participants were col-
lected from a nationwide sample (n= 9), followed by school
counties/districts/zones (n= 6), single state/province/region
(n= 5), single university (n= 4), and multiple states/prov-
inces/regions (n= 3). Most of the reviewed studies were quan-
titative (n= 21), followed by mixed-method (n= 5) and qual-
itative (n= 1). Study sample size (all participants) ranged
between 18 and 20,406 participants, with the smallest sample
coming from the one qualitative study (i.e., Varjas et al. 2013).
The range of LGBTQ participants ranged between 3.84% and
100%. For the purpose of this review, we organized the results
and findings for each study into three different categories: (a)
prevalence (n= 26), (b) correlates and impact (n=9),and(c)
prevention and intervention strategies (n= 11). Only three of
the 11 studies that discussed prevention strategies for
cyberbullying mentioned LGBTQ-specific prevention strate-
gies (i.e., GLSEN et al. 2013; Hinduja and Patchin 2012;
Ramsey et al. 2016). See Table 1for more details about each
study.
Studies and Participants’Diversity
Age and Educational Level The majority of the studies
(n= 20) reported on the age of participants (range of 11–
25 years old), while seven studies only reported the grade or
educational level. Most studies (n= 22) were conducted with
secondary-age school students, including middle and high
school or a combination thereof. Nine studies were conducted
with only high school students, while nine studies were con-
ducted with middle and high school students combined and
only one study (Rice et al. 2015) with middle school students.
On the other hand, only five studies included participants from
postsecondary institutions, including colleges and universi-
ties. Noticeably, the five studies that reported data from private
schools (GLSEN et al. 2013; Guasp 2012; Hillier et al. 2010;
Kosciw et al. 2012;Kosciwetal.2016)werealllargescale,
nationwide climate surveys. In addition, only two studies
(Blais et al. 2013; Blumenfeld and Cooper 2010)col-
lected data from both secondary and postsecondary
schools combined.
Race and Ethnicity The racial and ethnic diversity varied
greatly among studies. More specifically, White participants
made up the largest range across studies (3.3% - 92%), follow-
ed by Hispanics/Latinas/os (5% - 59.62%), African American/
Black (2.8% - 41%), Asian/Pacific Islander (2.4% - 19%),
Biracial/Multiracial (1.26% - 16.6%), BOther^(0.8% -
6.4%), and Native American/Indigenous people (0.41% -
6%). In addition, only three studies (Cénat et al. 2015;
Kosciw et al. 2012;Kosciwetal.2016) reported racial and
ethnic demographic data on Middle Eastern participants.
Furthermore, seven studies (Blais et al. 2013; Hillier et al.
2010; Hinduja and Patchin 2012; Mace et al. 2016; Priebe
and Svedin 2012; Robinson and Espelage 2011;Walker
2015)didnotreportspecificdataonracialand/orethnicdi-
versity. Moreover, four studies (Cénat et al. 2015;Guasp
2012; Schneider et al. 2015; Stoll and Block 2015) did not
provide a breakdown of the percentage of racial and ethnic
diversity in their sample and only reported White vs. non-
White participants.
Sexual Identity Although the sexual identity of participants
ranged across studies, there are important trends. Most studies
(n= 19) provided a combined sample of heterosexual and
non-heterosexual participants, with the goal of comparing
prevalence, correlates, and outcomes between these groups.
Fourteen of the 19 studies had a significantly large sample
of heterosexual participants (range of 71% - 94.4%) and did
not provide a breakdown of the non-heterosexual sample (i.e.,
participants were identified as only heterosexual or non-het-
erosexual). In fact, only eight studies (Duong and Bradshaw
2014; GLSEN et al. 2013;Guasp2012; Hillier et al. 2010;
Kosciw et al. 2012;Kosciwetal.2016; Sterzing et al. 2017;
Varjas et al. 2013) had a sample of 100% LGBT participants
and only three studies (Blumenfeld and Cooper 2010;Cooper
and Blumenfeld 2012; Hillier et al. 2010) had a large sample
(over 75%) of LGBT participants. Of the studies that provided
a breakdown of sexual identities (n= 13), the category of gay
participants made up the largest range across studies (0.7% -
82%), followed by lesbian and gay combined (0.65% -
62.9%), bisexual (2.4% - 42%), lesbian (1.4% - 39%), and
queer/questioning/unsure (0.09% - 12%). Furthermore, one
study (Duong and Bradshaw 2014) did not report the number
of LGB identified individuals despite the fact that these par-
ticipants were part of the results and analysis.
Gender Gender also varied greatly by study. Female partici-
pants made up the largest percentage in most studies (n=17),
with only five studies (Bouris et al. 2016;G
uasp2012;
Kosciw et al. 2016;Riceetal.2015;Varjasetal.2013)
reporting a higher percentage of males than females. In addi-
tion, only 11 studies (Blais et al. 2013; Blumenfeld and
Cooper 2010; Cooper and Blumenfeld 2012; GLSEN et al.
2013;Guasp2012; Hillier et al. 2010;Kosciwetal.2012;
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
Tab l e 1 Description of the Studies on LGBTQ Cyberbullying Included in the Systematic Review
Study Definition of Cyberbullying Cut-off-value Participants Representative
or Ad hoc-
sample
Prevalence
Bauman
and
Baldasare
(2015)
Intentional and repeated harm of others
through the use of computers, cell
phones, and other electronic devices.
Multiple items; Responses from 1 (never) to
6 (every day/almost every day).
N= 1078; undergraduate
students (freshman through
senior).
Ad hoc 1- When compared to their heterosexual and
cisgender counterparts, LGBT
respondents reported higher rates of
unwanted contact online (t= 3.49,
df = 91.98, p= .001, η2 = .01).
Blais et al.
(2013)
Definition not provided. Single item; Responses coded on
dichotomous scale (no/yes). Forms of
prejudiced: dichotomous score (never vs.
rarely to always).
N= 8029; ages 14–22. Representative 1–28% to 48.95% of the youths of students
reported cyberbullying (study does not
distinguish between sexual minority
youth and others).
2- Sexual orientation rates of prejudice:
1.67–2% for heterosexual participants
and 32.02–64.42 for sexual minority
youth.
3- Gender non-conformity rates of preju-
dice: 5.29–6.47% for heterosexual par-
ticipants and 25.66–60.49 for sexual mi-
nority youth.
Blumenfeld
and
Cooper
(2010)
Deliberate, intentional, and repeated
aggressive and hostile behaviors through
the use of computers, cell phones, and
other electronic devices to humiliate,
harm, and control another individual or
group of individuals with less power.
Multiple items; Cut off score not provided. N= 444; ages 11–22. Ad hoc 1- Rates of cyberbullying of LGBT vs.
non-LGBT was not measured.
Bouris et al.
(2016)
Definition not provided. Multiple item; Items recoded so that 0 = no
victimization and 1 = one or more
victimization experiences.
N= 1907; high school students;
age mean 15.7 years old.
Ad hoc 1- Cyberbullying based on sexual
orientation: 16.81% for sexual minority
and 11.03% for heterosexual participants.
Cénatetal.
(2015)
An intentional and aggressive behavior or
act repeatedly carried out by an individual
(or a group) against another person (or
group) who cannot easily defend himself
(or themselves) using electronic tools
such as social networks, emails, cell
phones power.
Single item; Response coded on a
4-point-scale: Never (0), 1 to 2 times (1),
3t
o5times(2)and6timesandmore(3).
Dichotomized score: the behavior hap-
penedatleast1to2timesandmore.
N= 8194; high schools students
(grades 10 to 12); ages
14–20 years old.
Representative 1–28% for gay/lesbian, 32.9% bisexual, and
24% questioning vs. 21.4% for
heterosexual participants.
Cooper and
Blumenf-
eld
(2012)
Receiving rude, angry or vulgar,
intimidating or threatening messages,
have someone send or post personal
information about a person, been
excluded from a group, receiving harmful
messages by someone who hid their
identity.
Multiple items; Four-point scale:
1 = Never/Rarely and 4 = Frequently.
N= 310; middle and high
school; ages 11–18 years old.
Ad hoc 1- Rates of Bfrequently^experiencing
cyberbullying for LGBT vs. LGBT allies:
22.7% - 32.8% for LGBT vs. 10% -
28.3% for LGBT allies.
Bullying occurring through electronic
communications, such as e-mail, instant
Single item; Dichotomous responses
(yes/no). Categorized into 1 of 4 groups:
Representative
(of NYC)
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
Tab l e 1 (continued)
Study Definition of Cyberbullying Cut-off-value Participants Representative
or Ad hoc-
sample
Prevalence
Duong and
Bradsha-
w(2014)
messages, websites, or text messages;
Behavior carried out repeatedly over
time, and occurs in interpersonal
relationships marked by an imbalance of
power.
Bnot bullied,^Bcyber bullied only,^
Bschool bullied only,^or Bboth.^
N= 951; grades 9 through 12;
Only LGBTQ participants, no
comparison group.
1–9.7% experienced cyberllying and 10.1%
experienced both cyberbullying and
traditional bullying.
GLSEN
et al.
(2013)
Definition not provided. Number of items not specified; Bullying
ranged from once a day to once or a few
times in the last 12 months.
N= 1960; ages 13–18 years old;
Only LGBTQ participants, no
comparison group.
Ad hoc 1- In the past year: 42% harassed online,
19% cyberbullied via phone call, 27%
harassed via text message.
2- One in four (24%) said they had been
bullied online because of their sexual
orientation or gender expression.
3–30% experienced bullying due to heir
sexual orientation or gender expression
via text message or online while at home.
4–32% said they had been sexually harassed
online.
5–25% had been sexually harassed via text
message in the past year.
6–30% experienced sexual harassment
online.
7–20% experienced sexual harassment via
text message.
Guasp
(2012)
Definition not provided. Number of items not specified; Rating for
victimization from never to frequently.
N= 1614; ages 11–19 years old;
Only LGBTQ participants, no
comparison group.
Ad hoc 1–23% experienced cyberbullying.
Hillier et al.
(2010)
Definition not provided. No cut off score provided. N= 3134; between ages 14 and
21; Only LGBTQ
participants, no comparison
group.
Ad hoc 1- Approximately 25% males, 18% female,
and 27% gender questioning.
Hinduja and
Patchin
(2012)
Definition not provided. No cut off score provided. N= 4400; ages 11–18. Representative
(of the
district)
1- LGBT students reported experiencing
more cyberbullying throughout their life
time when compared to their heterosexual
counterparts (36.4% vs. 20.1%).
2- LGBT students reported being the victim
of cyberbullying in the previous 30 days
when compared to their heterosexual
counterparts (17.3% vs. 6.8%).
3- Non-heterosexual females experience
more cyberbullying than their heterosex-
ual counterparts (38.3% vs. 24.6%).
4- Non-heterosexual males experience more
cyberbullying than their heterosexual
counterparts (30.4% vs. 15.7%).
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
Tab l e 1 (continued)
Study Definition of Cyberbullying Cut-off-value Participants Representative
or Ad hoc-
sample
Prevalence
Kosciw
et al.
(2012)
Using an electronic medium, including cell
phones or Internet communications, to
threaten or harm others.
Number of items not specified; Coded:
frequently, often, sometimes, rarely.
N= 8584; ages 13–20; Only
LGBTQ participants, no
comparison group.
Representative 1–55% of LGBTQ youth experienced
cyberbullying in the past year.
Kosciw
et al.
(2016)
Using an electronic medium, such as a
mobile phone or Internet
communications, to threaten or harm
others.
Number of items not specified; Coded:
frequently, often, sometimes, rarely.
N= 10,528 students; ages 13
and 21; Only LGBTQ
participants, no comparison
group.
Representative 1–48.6% of LGBTQ youth experienced
cyberbullying at in the past year; 15%
experienced it often or frequently.
Mace et al.
(2016)
When one person or a group of people
repeatedly try to hurt or embarrass
another person on purpose using
technology, such as computers or mobile
phones.
Multiple items; Response coded: less than
once a week, once a week, one or two
times a week, most days, or every day.
N= 528; ages 18–25
(undergraduate students).
Ad hoc This study measured perceived social
support among heterosexual and
non-heterosexual university sample; no
information on cyberbullying prevalence
was reported.
Priebe and
Svedin
(2012)
Harassing, threatening, spreading rumors,
writing offensive things, and/or dissemi-
nating sexual pictures or films electroni-
cally or digitally, such as via mobile
phone or the Internet.
Multiple items; Response coded: Byes,
once,^Byes, several times,^and Bno,
never.^
N= 3432 high school seniors;
ages 16–22.
Representative 1- Non-heterosexual male students reported
experiencing more cyberbullying than
their heterosexual male counterparts
(10.4% to 23.0% vs. 2.0% to 16.8%).
2- Non-heterosexual female students re-
ported experiencing more cyberbullying
than their heterosexual female counter-
parts (3.3% to 23.2% vs. 1.5% to 16.1%).
Ramsey
et al.
(2016)
Repeated and intentional aggression that is
delivered through electronic means.
Multiple items; A single recent cyber
victimization score was created from a set
of nine items.
N= 634; college students; ages
18–22.
Ad hoc 1- Sexual minority participants reported
significantly higher levels of recent cyber
victimization compared to heterosexual
participants (M = 1.07 vs. M = 1.02).
Rice et al.
(2015)
Willful and repeated harm perpetrated
against some one else through the use of
technology, including computers, cell
phones, or other electronic means.
Multiple items; Response coded: never,
once or twice, a few times, many times,
and every day.
N= 1185 Middle school age
(grades 6–8); average age of
12.3 years old.
Representative
of the school
district (LA)
1- Sexual-minority students were more
likely to report cyberbullying victimiza-
tion than their heterosexual counterparts.
Robinson
and
Espelage
(2011)
Definition not provided. Single item; Response coded: never, rarely,
sometimes often, very often.
N= 13,213 middle and high
school students; median of
13 years old for middle school
students and median of
16 years old for high school
students.
Ad hoc 1- LGBTQ students reported experiencing
more cyberbullying; approximately
14.8% more than heterosexual students.
2- Bisexual students reported higher
incidents of cyberbullying than
heterosexual and LGTQ students;
approximately 25.5% more than
heterosexual and 10.7% more than
LGTQ students.
Schneider
et al.
(2015)
Acts of intentional and repeated harm
delivered through computers, mobile
phones, and other electronic devices.
Single item; Dichotomize responses (yes or
no).
N = between 16,385 and 17,089;
9–12 grade students.
Ad hoc 1- Sexual minority youth reported
experiencing more cyberbullying than
their heterosexual counterparts for 2006
(28.6% vs. 13.6%), 2008 (32.8% vs.
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
Tab l e 1 (continued)
Study Definition of Cyberbullying Cut-off-value Participants Representative
or Ad hoc-
sample
Prevalence
14.3%), 2010 (34.6% vs. 18.6%), and
2012 (31.5% vs. 20.3%).
Schneider
et al.
(2012)
Using the Internet, a phone, or other form of
electronic communication to bully, tease,
or threaten someone.
Single item. N= 20,406; 9–12 grade. Ad hoc 1- Sexual minority youth reported
experiencing more cyberbullying than
their heterosexual counterparts (33.1%
vs. 14.5%).
2- Sexual minority youth reported
experiencing more school bullying and
cyberbullying combined than their
heterosexual counterparts (22.7% vs.
8.5%).
Sinclair
et al.
(2012)
Cyber harassment through the Internet or
text messages.
Single item. N= 17,366 students; middle and
high school students.
Ad hoc This study reported on the correlates of
cyberbullying with academic, substance
use, and mental health problems; No
prevalence of cyberbullying was
provided.
Sterzing
et al.
(2017)
Definition not provided. Single item; This never happened to me (0),
Once in the past year (1), One or more
times a month (2), One or more times a
week(3),Oneormoretimesaday(5),
Not in the past year but it happened (6).
N= 1177; 14–19 years old;
Only LGBTQ participants, no
comparison group.
Ad hoc 1- Cisgender sexual minority males: 37.2%;
Cisgender sexual minority females:
35.6%; Transgender male: 51.4%;
Transgender females: 71.3%;
Genderqueer- assigned male at birth:
43.8%; Genderqueer- assigned female at
birth: 44.8%.
Stoll and
Block
(2015)
The willful and repeated harm inflicted
through electronic mediums.
Multiple items; Responses were
dichotomize (never’= 0 and experienced
cyberbullying and some degree = 1).
N= 752; 9–12 grade students. Ad hoc 1- Non-heterosexual students experienced
more than half an additional instance of
cyberbullying than their heterosexual
peer.
Taylor et al.
2011
Definition not provided. Single item; Responses were dichotomized
(yes or no).
N= 3607; 91.9% high school
students and 8.1%
post-secondary institution;
average of 17.4 years old.
Ad hoc 1- LGBTQ youth reported experiencing
moreliesandrumorsspreadbytext
messaging and Internet than their
non-LGBTQ counterparts (27.7% vs.
5.7%).
Varjas et al.
(2013)
Bullying that occurs online or in some other
form of cyberspace.
No cut off score given (qualitative study). N=18 LGB adolescents; grades
9–12, 15–18 years of age;
Only LGBTQ participants, no
comparison group.
Ad hoc Qualitative study; no prevalence reported.
Wal k e r
(2015)
Using technology tools (such as social
networking sites, cell phones, instant
message, or other form of technology) to
slander, harass, or send messages that
result in the person who receives it.
Multiple items; Response coded: never, one
time, two to four times, five to seven
times, or more than seven times.
Dichotomous score (1 = never and
2 = one or more times).
N= 438 undergraduate students;
ages 18–24.
Ad hoc 1- Non-heterosexual participants experi-
enced more cyberbullying than their het-
erosexual counterparts (22.9% vs. 9.5%).
2- Percentages of specific forms of
cyberbullying ranges ranged from .0% to
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
Tab l e 1 (continued)
Study Definition of Cyberbullying Cut-off-value Participants Representative
or Ad hoc-
sample
Prevalence
29.9% for heterosexual participants and
5.7% to 43.2% for non-Heterosexual
participants.
Wen s l ey
and
Campbell
(2012)
When one person or a group of people try to
hurt or embarrass another person, using
their computer or mobile phone; the
person bullying has some advantage over
the person targeted.
Multiple items; One incident of cyber
bullying sufficient to qualify as being a
victim.
N= 528 undergraduate students;
18–25 years old.
Ad hoc 1- Non-heterosexual participants experi-
enced more cyberbullying than their het-
erosexual counterparts (10.8% vs.
15.4%).
2- Non-heterosexual males experienced
more cyberbullying than their male het-
erosexual counterparts (11.1% vs.
35.3%).
3- Non-heterosexual females experienced
more cyberbullying than their female
heterosexual counterparts (10.5% vs.
11%).
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
Kosciw et al. 2016; Ramsey et al. 2016; Sterzing et al. 2017;
Taylor et al. 2011) reported on transgender participants, with a
range between 0.25% and 15.2%. Noticeably, the study by
Sterzing et al. (2017) included the largest percentage of
genderqueer participants (20.5%). Furthermore, only two
studies (Blumenfeld and Cooper 2010; Cooper and
Blumenfeld 2012) reported on intersex participants (0.1%
and 0.6%). Three studies (Hinduja and Patchin 2012;
Robinson and Espelage 2011; Sinclair et al. 2012) did not
provide a percentage for gender.
Prevalence
As noted by Aboujaoude et al. (2015) in a review of the
literature on cyberbullying (overall, not specific to LGBTQ
youth), it is challenging to accurately estimate the prevalence
of online victimization. However, across this literature review
one finding is clear: sexual minority and gender expansive
adolescents are disproportionally more often victims of
cyberbullying than their heterosexual and cisgender counter-
parts. Also, although the percentage of cyberbullying among
LGBTQ youth seems to differ from one study to another, the
range appears to be between 10.5% and 71.3% across studies.
An interesting finding by Schneider et al. (2015)isthat
cyberbullying among sexual minority youth decreased by
3% between 2006 and 2012 (47% vs. 50%). However, they
assert that regardless of this decline and promising trend, sex-
ual minority youth consistently report significantly higher
levels of cyberbullying when compared to their heterosexual
counterparts (Schneider et al. 2015), and this still translates to
almost half of all sexual minority youth as victims of
cyberbullying.
Sexual minority and gender expansive youth reported be-
ing more exposed to anonymous forms of cyberbullying than
their heterosexual counterparts (Bauman and Baldasare 2015;
Guasp 2012). In addition, according to Blais et al. (2013), after
rejection and humiliation, cyberbullying is consistently
ranked among the highest form of prejudice toward sexual
minority students, affecting between 28% and 48.95% of
these youth. Moreover, when compared to traditional bully-
ing, Duong and Bradshaw (2014) found that LGB students
experienced more cyberbullying than traditional bullying
(9.7% vs. 8.2%). The following sections will present preva-
lence of cyberbullying among sexual minority and gender
expansive youth, divided by: (a) gender and cyberbullying,
(b) reasons for not reporting cyberbullying and help seeking
behaviors, and (c) people of color and cyberbullying. Before
proceeding with this section it is important to note that only
eight of the studies included in this review used a representa-
tive sample, with most studies (n= 19) using an ad hoc sam-
pling approach. Considering that a prevalence rate is intended
to inform about the percentage of victims in a population and
only representative samples can yield conclusions about
populations, these prevalence rates should be interpreted with
caution.
Gender and LGBTQ Cyberbullying Overall, a review of
these studies show that both male and female sexual minority
youth report substantially higher levels of cyberbullying than
their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts (e.g., Hillier
et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2015; Wensley and Campbell
2012). In addition, Cooper and Blumenfeld (2012) found that
19% of LGBT participants reported being harassed for their
biological sex and 41% for their gender identity or expression.
The study by GLSEN et al. (2013) took the findings by Cooper
and Blumenfeld (2012) a step further and reported that partic-
ipants who identified as cisgender non-heterosexual females,
transgender youth, and youth with Bother^genders reported
higher levels of cyberbullying than those who identified as
cisgender gay and bisexual males. These findings seem to be
consistent with Hinduja and Patchin (2012) and Rice et al.
(2015), whose findings show that sexual minority females re-
ported greater frequency of cyberbullying than male sexual
minority youth. Unfortunately, there seems to be a discrepancy
across studies regarding which gender is more often victimized
among LGBT students. Specifically, Schneider et al. (2015)
report that sexual minority males were more likely to report
cyberbullying than both their heterosexual counterparts and
sexual minority females.
Furthermore, some studies suggest that bisexual youth
might not only be more susceptible to a higher prevalence of
cyberbullying than heterosexual youth (Cénat et al. 2015)but
also more susceptible than other sexual minority youth
(Robinson & Espelage 2011). For example, Taylor et al.
(2011) found that bisexual female students were more likely
to experience cyberbullying than lesbian participants (38.5%
vs. 28.1%). However, the same trend was not found for gay
versus bisexual males. That is, gay males were more likely to
be bullied than bisexual males (28.2% vs. 18.9%; Taylor et al.
2011). Furthermore, some studies seem to suggest that there is
a gender difference in victimization among bisexual youth.
For instance, Cénat et al. (2015) found that bisexual and
questioning males were more likely than bisexual and
questioning females to report cyberbullying.
Reasons for LGBTQ Youth not Reporting Cyberbullying
and Support Seeking sexual minority and gender expansive
youth often do not report cyberbullying to their parents or
school personnel (i.e., counselors, teachers, and administrators).
Blumenfeld and Cooper (2010) found that heterosexual partic-
ipants were more likely to tell their parental figure about being
exposed to cyberbullying than their LGBT counterparts (37%
vs. 18%). The number one reason for not reporting
cyberbullying to parents among LGBT students was fear that
parents would restrict their use of technologies, which was
significantly higher than their heterosexual counterparts (56%
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
vs. 37%; Cooper and Blumenfeld 2012). Some other reasons
for LGBT students not reporting were the belief that parents
could not do anything about the incidents of cyberbullying, lack
of understanding and support by parents, getting in trouble with
parents, suffering further retaliation by the bully, and fear of
being made fun of by others (Blumenfeld and Cooper 2010;
Cooper and Blumenfeld 2012). Qualitative data revealed that
LGBT participants were fearful of reporting cyberbullying be-
cause of their sexual and gender identities and potential expo-
sure of these identities (Blumenfeld and Cooper 2010). Similar
to the reasons for not reporting to parents, it appears that sexual
minority and gender expansive youth do not report
cyberbullying to school personnel due to the belief that the
school will not take action to stop it, fear of not being under-
stood by the school, retaliation from the bully, and belief that
they had to handle the situation themselves (Cooper and
Blumenfeld 2012). However, it is important to note that
Priebe and Svedin (2012) found that participants identified par-
ents as a main source of support after being cyberbullied.
This literature review revealed mixed findings regarding
support-seeking behaviors from sexual minority and gender
expansive youth. Mace et al. (2016) revealed that sexual minority
victims of cyberbullying had higher levels of access to perceived
social support than their heterosexual peers. Also, sexual minor-
ity youth who experienced cyberbullying had similar levels of
perceived social support than that of their heterosexual counter-
parts (Mace et al. 2016). However, the authors point out that
these findings are at odds with the findings of Flaspohler et al.
(2009) and Holt and Espelage (2007) who found that sexual
minority individuals reported fewer social supports, which was
associated with greater risk for bullying. Further, Priebe and
Svedin (2012) found that although sexual minority youth report-
ed that they had sought more support than their heterosexual
counterparts due to incidents of cyberbullying, they did not re-
ceive the support that they needed. Some encouragement is pro-
videdbyVarjasetal.(2013) who report that sexual minority
students perceived that school policies are being put in place to
reduce cyberbullying. However, these students believe that
cyberbullying will still take place without staff awareness or
ability to stop it (Varjas et al. 2013).
Although research on the reasons why LGBTQ students do
not report or seek support for cyberbullying is scant and pro-
vides mixed findings, studies from the general bullying liter-
ature might help further explicate this phenomenon. Overall,
research shows that the main reasons why students do not
report bullying are: (a) concerns that the staff will blame them
for the incident (i.e., victim-blaming), (b) beliefs that staff will
not accurately handle the issue or will downplayed the inci-
dent, and (c) feeling powerless, shameful and fearful (e.g.,
Bjereld 2016;DeLara2012). A unique reason for LGBTQ
students not reporting bullying is distrust that the school per-
sonnel will not keep confidentiality about their sexual and/or
gender identity and will, instead, out them to other staff and
family members. In addition, another striking and disturbing
finding unique to LGBTQ students and traditional bullying is
the fact that some of these students identify school personnel
as the perpetrators of harassment and bullying (Kosciw et al.
2016) and, therefore, these students feel powerless to report
their experiences due to the fact that those whose duty is to
protect them are the actual perpetrators.
LGBTQ Youth of Color and Cyberbullying Although lim-
ited, some of the data provides information about the intersec-
tion of sexual and gender identity and race and ethnicity.
Cooper and Blumenfeld (2012) found that in the last 30 days,
14% of LGBT youth reported being harassed based on their
race or ethnicity. However, this finding does not seem to be
corroborated by other studies in this literature review.
Specifically, GLSEN et al. (2013) found that African
American and Asian LGBT participants were the least ex-
posed to cyberbullying when compared to their White coun-
terparts. On the other hand, two studies found that there were
no differences in overall reporting of cyberbullying by race or
ethnicity (Schneider et al. 2012; Stoll and Block 2015).
Correlates and Impact
This literature review revealed nine studies that reported find-
ings on the correlates of cyberbullying for LGBT youth.
Overall, there is a higher correlation between being a victim
of cyberbullying and negative outcomes for sexual minority
and gender expansive youths than for their heterosexual and
cisgender counterparts. There is no doubt that when sexual
minorities and gender expansive youths feel Bouted,^exposed,
and harassed due to their sexual and gender identity they are
vulnerable to negative mental health outcomes including isola-
tion and psychological distress (Cénat et al. 2015). For the
purpose of this review, the authors have classified correlates
and impact into three main categories: (a) psychological and
emotional, (b) behavioral, and (c) academic.
Psychological and Emotional Correlates of Cyberbullying
among LGBTQ Youth Psychological and emotional corre-
lates of cyberbullying are perhaps the most well researched
correlate for cyberbullying among sexual minority and gender
expansive youth. We have classified the different areas of
psychological and emotional correlates under the categories
of: (a) suicidal ideation and attempt, (b) depression, and (c)
lower self-esteem.
This literature review revealed a correlation between sui-
cidal ideation and attempt and cyberbullying alone and a com-
bination of cyberbullying with traditional bullying (Cénat
et al. 2015; Cooper and Blumenfeld 2012; Duong and
Bradshaw 2014; Schneider et al. 2012; Sinclair et al. 2012),
with many participants reporting the need for medical atten-
tion after serious suicide attempts (Sinclair et al. 2012).
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
Cooper and Blumenfeld (2012) found that 35% of LGBT
participants reported having suicidal thoughts while 14% re-
ported attempting suicide as a result of being cyberbullied.
Also, Duong and Bradshaw (2014) found that LGB partici-
pants attempted suicide in the past 12 months at a rate of 3.07
times higher after being cyberbullied. In addition, in the study
by Cénat et al. (2015), sexual minority youth who reported
being victims of cyberbullying reported higher rates of suicid-
al ideation than those sexual minority participants who were
not victims (55.6% vs. 24.7%). Similarly, Schneider et al.
(2012) found that suicide attempt was highest among partici-
pants who had been cyberbullied versus those who had expe-
rienced face-to-face school bullying (9.4% vs. 4.2%). In addi-
tion, gender seems to play a role among sexual minorities who
report suicidal ideation and attempts as a result of
cyberbullying. Cénat et al. (2015) found that bisexual and
questioning girls and bisexual boys were more likely to report
suicidal ideations than heterosexual boys, with bisexual girls
reporting higher levels than other sexual minority youth.
It is important to note that participants who experienced
two forms of bullying (i.e., face-to-face and cyberbullying)
reported greater rates of serious suicide attempts than those
who only reported being bullied face-to-face (5.03 vs. 4.20
times). Also, those who experienced two forms of bullying
reported making serious suicide attempts and engaged in more
suicidal behaviors than those who reported only one form of
bullying (Duong and Bradshaw 2014). Compared to partici-
pants who did not report any form of bullying, the risk of
attempted suicide was 4.72 times greater for LGB youth
who experienced one form of victimization and 8.30 times
greater for students who experienced two forms of victimiza-
tion (Duong and Bradshaw 2014). Similar findings were re-
ported by Schneider et al. (2012), who found the highest per-
centage of suicide among those who reported both face-to-
face and cyberbullying combined (15.2%).
Sexual minority youth who have been exposed to
cyberbullying report higher levels of depression compared to
those who have not (GLSEN et al. 2013;Ramseyetal.2016;
Sinclair et al. 2012). Specifically, Cooper and Blumenfeld
(2012) found that feelings of depression were the highest
ranked emotional response correlated to cyberbullying among
LGBT participants. Similarly, Schneider et al. (2012)found
that 33.9% of those participants who reported being
cyberbullied reported symptoms of depression. On the other
hand, similar to findings about suicide ideation and attempt,
those who experience both traditional and cyberbullying re-
ported higher symptoms of depression. Cyberbullying has al-
so been associated with lower self-esteem for sexual minori-
ties and gender expansive youth (Cénat et al. 2015;GLSEN
et al. 2013; Priebe and Svedin 2012). Furthermore, although
notwidelyexploredinthisreview,bisexualand
questioning girls and bisexual boys were more likely
to report lower self-esteem, with bisexual girls reporting
lower levels than other sexual minority youth (Cénat
et al. 2015).
Behavioral Correlates of Cyberbullying among LGBTQ
You t h While there is no evidence to support that
cyberbullying alone leads sexual minorities to engage in more
physical fights, being a victim of cyberbullying and traditional
bullying exacerbates physical fights among these youth and
their peers (Duong and Bradshaw 2014). It is important to
note that research shows that when LGBT students stand up
for themselves against being bullied and harassed they face
harsher consequences than the perpetrator (Golgowki 2014).
Other behavioral correlates are poor body image, isolating
themselves from friends and family and fear of going to
school (Cooper and Blumenfeld 2012).
Academic Correlates of Cyberbulling among LGBTQ
Yo u t h According to GLSEN et al. (2013), LGBT youth who
were cyberbullied reported significantly lower GPAs and
overall academic success than youth who were less frequently
cyberbullied. Participants who were victims of cyberbullying
reported lower school performance (e.g., receiving failing ac-
ademic grades) and lower school attachment (Cooper and
Blumenfeld 2012; Schneider et al. 2012).
Prevention and Intervention Recommendations
Despite the rates of cyberbullying in sexual minorities and
gender expansive youth, there is an absence of empirically
evaluated prevention efforts addressing this problem. As stat-
ed by Ramsey et al. (2016), BFew interventions exist that are
specifically developed to decrease…cyberbullying, and no
interventions of this kind exist for sexual minority populations
in particular^(p. 497). Taking into consideration existing re-
search that supports the notion that a one-size fits all does not
protect LGBTQ students against bullying (Kull et al. 2015),
we propose that cyberbullying prevention and intervention
programs be tailored for LGBTQ students. Our recommenda-
tions for students, schools and parents are based on anti-
cyberbullying interventions discussed in 11 of the identified
studies in this literature review and a comprehensive review of
two bodies of literature: (a) overall cyberbullying prevention
efforts and (b) LGBT bullying prevention strategies.
Student-Focused Interventions
Blumenfeld and Cooper (2010) and Ramsey et al. (2016)rec-
ommend raising awareness among students about the effects
of LGBTQ cyberbullying by using educational programs that
are peer-driven as an important intervention. Although no
LGBTQ-specific programs exist, peer-driven interventions
have proven to be effective in increasing awareness and re-
ducing incidents of cyberbullying among students. While not
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
used with LGBTQ students, in evaluating a peer-led approach
(i.e., NoTrap!) to reduce cyberbullying among high school
students, Palladino et al. (2016) found it had long-term effects
in reducing cyberbullying for both boys and girls. Putting
students in charge of delivering information to other students
is an effective way of getting buy-in and increasing awareness
and decreasing behaviors that constitute cyberbullying.
Applying these findings to LGBTQ students, it is recommend-
ed that LGBTQ victims be involved in these awareness and
prevention efforts. That is, with the consent of the LGBTQ
student and protection of school personnel to make sure fur-
ther harassment is not perpetrated, LGBTQ students should be
active in the content selection, development, and implemen-
tation of a peer-led model. This will be crucial as bullying
research suggests that when individuals are able to make an
emotional connection with what is being presented to them,
they are more likely to intervene (Case and Meier 2014).
Technology is also being used as an intervention to increase
knowledge about what constitutes cyberbullying and its con-
sequences, foster empathy toward victims, reduce the impact
(e.g., depression) on victims, and teach coping skills to current
and potential victims. Doane et al. (2016) developed and im-
plemented a program, Theory of Reasoned Action-TRA,to
measure the effectiveness of a video-based intervention with
students. Although not focused on LGBT youth, results re-
vealed that compared to students who were not exposed to
the intervention (i.e., control group), those who were showed
an increase in knowledge of cyberbullying and more empathy
toward victims immediately after the intervention and at a
one-month follow-up. Although this technology-based pro-
gram has been successful in reducing cyberbullying and in-
creasing empathy among students, we pose that this and sim-
ilar programs must incorporate understanding of the needs of
sexual minority and gender expansive youth, including how
these platforms can be a source of support for LGBTQ youth
(Hillier et al. 2010). For example, GLSEN et al. (2013)report
that a substantial number of LGBT youth report searching for
or reading about sexuality-related information online, thus,
making the Internet an appropriate platform where these youth
can access different sources of information, including infor-
mation about cyberbullying, without having to be Bouted.^
Hillier et al. (2010) suggest that schools create online forums
for LGBTQ students to connect safely with others. Similar to
face-to-face interventions, online interventions must include
specific information and scenarios to bring visibility to the
higher prevalence of cyberbullying among sexual minority
and gender expansive youth.
Other interventions include empowering youth to serve as
Bupstanders^and not bystanders. These methods would en-
courage them to intervene when they witness or become
aware of cyberbullying (Blumenfeld and Cooper 2010).
Flanagan (2014) proposed using cognitive behavioral tech-
niques to teach individual and group interventions to students
such as how to appropriately address conflict with others,
impulse control management, cultivating a positive self-es-
teem, and fostering self-efficacy.
School-Focused Interventions
The need to have a supportive and safe school environment for
sexual minority and gender expansive youth is essential. It is
recommended that schools include cyberbullying into their al-
ready existing traditional bullying intervention and education
programs (Schneider et al. 2012). For example, Bauman and
Baldasare (2015) suggest that teachers across grade levels in-
clude a statement on their syllabus about what behaviors consti-
tute cyberbullying, available resources for victims, and conse-
quences for perpetrators. Also, researchers agree that schools
must create and enforce explicit policies against students who
tease, threaten, exclude, or mistreat other students based on sex-
ual orientation or gender identity and/or expression, including
cyberbullying (Blumenfeld and Cooper 2010; Hinduja and
Patchin 2012). LGBTQ participants in the study by
Blumenfeld and Cooper (2010) recommend that schools create
online methods for students to anonymously report incidences of
cyberbullying or having witnessed someone being cyberbullied,
as it could allow for early opportunities to intervene and educate.
These online reporting sites need to be accessed regularly and
swift action taken by school authorities. These policies not only
deliver the message that school personnel are invested in ending
cyberbullying against LGBTQ students but are crucial in
reducing harassment against this vulnerable population. Guasp
(2012) found that sexual minority students were significantly less
likely to be bullied in schools that responded quickly to homo-
phobic bullying than in schools that did not respond to these
incidents.
Additional training for school personnel would include ed-
ucation about their state’s laws regarding cyberbullying, includ-
ing states that include sexual minority and gender expansive
youth as part of these laws. Although currently all of the
United States and the District of Columbia (with the exception
of Alaska and Wisconsin) have laws against cyberbullying,
only14states
1
and the District of Columbia include gender
identity/expression. Eighteen states
2
and the District of
Columbia are inclusive of sexual orientation in their anti-
cyberbullying laws (Cyberbullying Research Center 2016;
Stop Bullying 2015). While these laws exist, the extent to
which school personnel alert law enforcement is unknown.
A critical intervention for incidents of LGBTQ bullying
and cyberbullying is the identification of Bsafe^faculty and
1
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode
Island, and Vermont
2
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
administrators who students can turn to for help (Duong and
Bradshaw 2014). According to Mace et al. (2016)schoolper-
sonnel are crucial in identifying LGBTQ victims of bullying,
including cyberbullying, and helping students access support
services within the school. School participants in a study by
Liboro et al. (2015) were in agreement that the more confident
and comfortable the teachers were in supporting LGBT
students, the safer they felt. In addition, Duong and
Bradshaw (2014) found that having an adult to talk to at
school was protective against engaging in physical fights,
attempting suicide, and making serious suicide attempts for
cyberbullied sexual minority youth. The authors maintain that
adults, administrators, teachers, and staff, who are openly sup-
portive of (and knowledgeable about) LGBTQ perspectives
and issues, should make themselves available as a resource to
students (Hinduja and Patchin 2012). Actions that increase
LGBTQ visibility in schools, such as having a Gay-Straight
Alliance (GSA) club in school, positive representations of
LGBTQ people and events in classroom discussions,
LGBTQ-inclusive library materials, sex education, and sign-
age, can potentially reduce incidents of cyberbullying.
Parent-Focused Interventions
Parents need to be aware of the risks associated with the use of
technology, including high incidents of cyberbullying (Ramsey
et al. 2016). In addition, providing parents education about youth
reports on cyberbullying and the reasons for not reporting
cyberbullying can help inform educational programs for parents
and potentially increase parents’supportive responses in the case
of victimization. Youth often do not want to report cyberbullying
because they are fearful that their technology devices will be
taken away (Blumenfeld and Cooper 2010).
Many parents do not feel competent enough with technol-
ogy to be involved in their child’s technology activities, and
believe their children are the experts (Schneider et al. 2015).
Therefore, parents should be proactive and seek information
about their child’s technology use by directly asking the child
(Flanagan 2014). Recognizing that it is not feasible for parents
to monitor their child’s use of technology at all times, scholars
recommend that parents discuss, share, and have their child
sign a family contract that outlines responsible and healthy
ways of using technology (e.g., Scola 2014; for more infor-
mation and ideas for parent-child media agreements visit
https://mediatechparenting.net/contracts-and-agreements/). In
addition, it is important to recognize that regarding parents
and family involvement in LGBTQ-specific cyberbullying
there are added layers of concerns that must be considered.
For instance, the LGBTQ adolescent being bullied might not
be out to their parents. Thus, when discussing family con-
tracts, parents should openly mention information about
cyberbullying prevalence and consequences about LGBTQ
youth, regardless of their child’s sexual and/or gender identity.
This delivers a message of safety and may lead to po-
tentially encouraging the child to disclose and have a
conversation regarding LGBTQ-specific bullying
instances.
A Collaborative Approach to Cyberbullying Prevention
These authors suggest a comprehensive prevention effort
among students, school personnel and parents in order to tar-
get cyberbullying, rather than individual, disconnected efforts.
Research suggests that when schools work together with stu-
dents, parents, and community partners and leaders, there is a
decrease in cybervictimization among youth (Couvillon and
Ilieva 2011; Flanagan 2014). When planning for
cyberbullying programming, involving the various stake-
holders in youths’lives increases consistency in policy devel-
opment and enforcement (Couvillon and Ilieva 2011;
Flanagan 2014; Simmons and Bynum 2014). For example,
attorneys can help schools, teachers, and parents understand
the legal ramifications for engaging in cyberbullying and dif-
ferent ways to access already established legal supports for
victims of cyberbullying (Flanagan 2014). These authors rec-
ommend that schools establish a community-wide LGBTQ-
cyberbullying taskforce to assess their school’sLGBTQ-
bullying climate and develop and implement programs to pro-
tect sexual minority and gender expansive students. Schools
should build relationships with local community organiza-
tions that specifically work with LGBTQ youth in order for
them to provide their expertise in addressing LGBTQ
cyberbullying.
Discussion
This literature review explored the prevalence and correlates for
LGBTQ victims of cyberbullying and provided interventions
and recommendations for this vulnerable population. The 27
studies reviewed differed in location, sample size, and method-
ology, with most studies employing quantitative methods
(n= 21) and only one qualitative study. LGBTQ youth are
disproportionally more likely to experience cyberbullying and
suffer negative outcomes (i.e., psychological and emotional, be-
havioral, academic, and relational) than their heterosexual and
cisgender counterparts. In addition, to date no LGBTQ specific
cyberbullying interventions exist. This literature review revealed
11 studies that provided recommendations based on the larger
literature on cyberbullying prevention efforts. Based on the rec-
ommendations presented in this literature review and other stud-
ies on cyberbullying and LGBTQ prevention strategies we have
provided recommendations tailored specifically to target and
hopefully reduce LGBTQ cyberbullying.
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
Gaps and Recommendations
As presented in this paper, perhaps the most important and
noticeable limitation is the absence of LGBTQ-specific
cyberbullying interventions and prevention research. The au-
thors of this paper propose that in order to decrease the prev-
alence of cyberbullying among LGBTQ youth, researchers
need to be intentional about understanding the needs of this
marginalized population and create interventions grounded on
specific needs of LGBTQ youth. Currently, not only there are
no programs that address LGBTQ cyberbullying, but there are
few programs that provide interventions and prevention for
traditional bullying of LGBTQ youth as well. An observation
across studies was the lack of representation of LGBTQ stu-
dents of color. That is, although racial, ethnic, sexual, and
gender identities were reported by most studies, analyses rare-
ly included a consideration of LGBTQ students of color and
their experiences of cyberbullying. Notably, only four studies
(i.e., Cooper and Blumenfeld 2012; GLSEN et al. 2013;
Schneider et al. 2012;StollandBlock2015)includedrace
and ethnicity as part of their analysis and results.
Unfortunately, there seems to exist a discrepancy, with two
of these studies (i.e., Schneider et al. 2012; Stoll and Block
2015) reporting no differences in overall reporting of
cyberbullying by race or ethnicity. Considering that research
on traditional bullying and discrimination among LGBTQ
students of color suggest that these students might suffer
greater victimization than their White peers, we pose that
cyberbullying of LGBTQ people of color needs to be further
explored and systematically researched. In addition, it is im-
portant to note that LGBTQ youth may also have other
oppressed intersecting identities that may make them more
susceptible to bullying, including race and ethnicity, gender
expression (e.g., performing one’s gender in a more masculine
or feminine way than expected), body type, socioeconomic
status, and religious identity. In a school climate study of
2130 LGBTQ students of color, Diaz and Kosciw (2009)
found that over 80% of these students were harassed in the
past year for their sexual identity and Bmore than half of
African American (51%), Latino/a (55%), Asian/Pacific
Islander (55%), and multiracial students (59%) report[ing] be-
ing verbally harassed in school for this reason^(p. xi). Also,
LGBT students might experience higher rates of cyberbullying
for reasons (e.g., depression, lower self-esteem) other than their
sexual and gender identity. For example, while bullying has
been associated with depression among children and adoles-
cents, studies have revealed that it is also true that depressed
children and adolescents tend to be more bullied and victimized
than their peers (e.g., Kochel et al. 2012; Schacter and Juvonen
2017). In a longitudinal study of 486 fourth through sixth
graders, Kochel et al. (2012) found that higher symptoms of
depression among participants indicated higher levels of vic-
timization. Considering that LGBTQ individuals, including
youth, suffer higher prevalence of depression and lower self-
esteem (e.g., Institute of Medicine 2011), it would be beneficial
to further investigate the relationship between negative conse-
quences and cyberbullying, and vice versa, in order to more
accurately capture and understand to what extent cyberbullying
affects LGBTQ youth.
Experiences of transgender and other gender expan-
sive individuals are either conflated with sexual identity
or outright ignored in most studies. Also, in studies
where transgender participants are included, conclusions
are drawn from a small sample of participants, with as
little as only 0.25% of the sample being comprised of
gender expansive students. Future research should thor-
oughly explore the experiences of cyberbullying of
transgender and other gender expansive students. It is
possible that the experiences of gender expansive stu-
dents are as different, and perhaps more pervasive and
negative than LGB and heterosexual students and, there-
fore, different cyberbullying prevention strategies might
be needed. Moreover, the studies that have been pre-
sented in this literature review specifically capture those
who identify with a particular label (LGBTQ). As stated
by Kosciw et al. (2012), conclusions cannot be drawn
from youth who might engage in same-sex relationships
but who do not particularly identify with a label or as a
sexual minority or gender expansive youth. Therefore,
further research should also assess for cyberbullying
among individuals who identify with other sexual iden-
tities, or no specific sexual identities, but engage in
same-sex relationships.
Methodological Concerns
An important limitation is sampling strategy. That is, most
studies recruited participants in school settings or LGBTQ-
related organizations. While these are reasonable and under-
standable recruitment sites, it is plausible to believe that the
results and experiences discussed in this paper reflect only
those of LGBTQ individuals who have connections to these
organizations or who felt safe enough to participate in the
study (e.g., Kosciw et al. 2012).
Cyberbullying research lacks theoretical and conceptual
clarity, including differences in definition, operationalization,
and cut-off values (i.e., the frequency of experiences and/or
behaviors a person must experience to be considered
cyberbullying; Zych et al. 2016). Specific to this paper, 11
studies used multiple items to assess cyberbullying, nine used
a one-item scale, and seven did not specify how many items
were used (including the one qualitative study). In addition,
some researchers have made the case that research should
focus on wide-range experiences of cyber-aggression, and
not specifically cyberbullying (e.g., Smith 2016), while other
researchers argue that cyberbullying is a specific form of
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
cyber-aggression that must be studied separately (e.g., Smith
et al.2013). We pose that as researchers further develop and
test new ways of defining and assessing for cyberbullying,
that the experiences of LGBTQ youth are taken into
consideration.
Suggestions for Future Research
Most studies in this review used a cross sectional research
design, making it challenging for researchers to accurately
understand the long term consequences of cyberbullying and
limiting the ability to make causal inferences (Cénat et al.
2015; Duong and Bradshaw 2014). Future research should
employ longitudinal research designs to better assess the ef-
fects of cyberbullying on LGBTQ youth over time and estab-
lish causation (Ramsey et al. 2016). Also, efforts should be
made to cast a wider net and try to reach LGBTQ youth who
might be isolated or not have LGBTQ-related organizations
readily available within their communities (e.g., rural commu-
nities, communities with large numbers of LGBTQ people of
color). In addition, the lack of uniformity regarding the defi-
nitions and evaluation measurements of cyberbullying makes
it difficult for researchers to accurately describe and make
definitive deductions regarding the prevalence and impact of
cyberbullying (e.g., Hamm et al. 2015). Lack of consistency
and representative sampling approach makes it challenging
for researchers to precisely capture the extent to which
cyberbullying affects LGBTQ youth, thus affecting their abil-
ity to recommend evidence-based interventions to combat and
dismantle LGBTQ cyberbullying.
Conclusion
LGBTQ youth are harassed and cyberbullied at rates higher
than their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts, resulting
in psychological and behavioral effects. These youth, who are
often already experiencing traditional bullying, lack support
from their peers, parents, schools and community and fre-
quently do not report cyberbullying. Current cyberbullying
interventions do not target these youth in their efforts and
notably absent is programming geared toward LGBTQ youth
of color. It is recommended that schools work collaboratively
with parents, LGBTQ students, and community partners to
create policies to protect these students. Parents are encour-
aged to dialogue openly with their children about the risks of
social media and provide supportive responses when youth
disclose cyberbullying. Comprehensive school policies that
create a climate of awareness for LGBTQ-specific
cyberbullying are recommended to begin to combat
cyberbullying. There is also a need to create therapeutic com-
munities to assist victims in recovering from this traumatic
form of bullying and decrease psychological distress.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Lorena Perez,
Marina Marchena, and Haiying Long for their assistance in manuscript
preparation.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies
included in the meta-analysis.
Aboujaoude, E., Savage, M., Starcevic, V., & Salame, W. (2015).
Cyberbullying: Review of an old problem gone viral. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 57,10–18. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.
011.
*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,
56,317–330. doi:10.1353/csd.2015.0039
Bjereld, Y. (2016). The challenging process of disclosing bullying vic-
timization: A grounded theory study from the victim's point of view.
Journal of Health Psychology, 1,1–9. doi:10.1177/
1359105316644973.
Black, W. W., Fedewa, A. L., & Gonzalez, K. A. (2012). Effects of BSafe
School^programs and policies on the social climate for sexual-
minority youth: A review of the literature. Journal of LGBT Youth,
9,321–339. doi:10.1080/19361653.2012.714343.
*Blais, M., Gervais, J., Boucher, K., Hébert, M., & Lavoie, F. (2013).
Prevalence of prejudice based on sexual minority status among 14 to
22-year-old youths in the province of Quebec (Canada).
International Journal of Victimology, 11,1–13.
*Blumenfeld, W. J., & Cooper, R. M. (2010). LGBT and allied youth
responses to cyberbullying: Policy implications. The International
JournalofCriticalPedagogy,3,114–133.
*Bouris, A., Everett, B. G., Heath, R. D., Elsaesser, C. E., & Neilands, T.
B. (2016). Effects of victimization and violence on suicidal ideation
and behaviors among sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents.
LGBT Health, 3,153–161. doi:10.1089/lgbt.2015.0037
Case, K. A., & Meier, S. C. (2014). Developing allies to transgender and
gender-nonconforming youth: Training for counselors and educa-
tors. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11,62–82.
*Cénat, J. M., Blais, M., Hébert, M., Lavoie, F., & Guerrier, M. (2015).
Correlates of bullying in Quebec high school students: The vulner-
ability of sexual-minority youth. Journal of Affective Disorders,
183,315–321. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.05.011
Collier, K. L., van Beusekom, G., Bos, H. M., & Sandfort, T. G. (2013).
Sexual orientation and gender identity/expression related peer vic-
timization in adolescence: A systematic review of associated psy-
chosocial and health outcomes. Journal of Sex Research, 50,299–
317.
*Cooper, R. M., & Blumenfeld, W. J. (2012). Responses to
cyberbullying: A descriptive analysis of the frequency of and impact
on LGBT and allied youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9,153–177.
Couvillon, M. A., & Ilieva, V. (2011). Recommended practices: A review
of schoolwide preventative programs and strategies on
cyberbullying. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
for Children and Youth, 55,96–101.
Cyberbullying Research Center (2016). Bullying laws across America.
Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/bullying-laws.
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
DeLara, E. W. (2012). Why adolescents don't disclose incidents of bully-
ing and harassment. Journal of School Violence, 11,288–305. doi:
10.1080/15388220.2012.705931.
Diaz, E. M., & Kosciw, J. G. (2009). Shared differences: The experiences
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students of color in our
nation's schools. New York: GLSEN.
Doane, A. N., Kelley, M. L., & Pearson, M. R. (2016). Reducing
cyberbullying: A theory of reasoned action- based video prevention
program for college students. Aggressive Behavior, 42,136–146.
*Duong, J., & Bradshaw, C. (2014). Associations between bullying and
engaging in aggressive and suicidal behaviors among sexual minor-
ity youth: The moderating role of connectedness. Journal of School
Health, 84,636–645.
Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., De La Rue, L., & Hamburger, M. E.
(2015). Longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic
teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among middle school stu-
dents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30,2541–2561. doi:10.
1177/0886260514553113.
Evans, C. B., & Smokowski, P. R. (2016). Negative bystander behavior in
bullying dynamics: Assessing the impact of social capital depriva-
tion and anti-social capital. Child Psychiatry & Human
Development,1–16.
Flanagan, A. Y. (2014). Cyberbullying and harassment. NetCE.Retrieved
from https://www.netcegroups.com/1127/Course_66421.pdf.
Flaspohler, P. D., Elfstrom, J. L., Vanderzee, K. L., Sink, H. E., &
Birchmeier, Z. (2009). Stand by me: The effects of peer and teacher
support in mitigating the impact of bullying on quality of life.
Psychology in the Schools, 46,636–649.
*GLSEN, CiPHER & CCRC (2013). Out online: The experiences of
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth on the Internet.New
York: GLSEN.
Golgowki, N. (2014. Transgender teen bullied at school faces criminal
charges for fight which only suspended other girls. The New York
Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/
national/bullied-transgender-teen-faces-criminal-charges-fight-
article-1.1571349.
*Guasp, A. (2012). The school report. The experiences of gay young
people in Britain’s schools in 2012. London: Stonewall.
Hamm, M. P., Newton, A. S., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A.,
Sundar, P., et al. (2015). Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on
children and young people: A scoping review of social media stud-
ies. JAMA Pediatrics, 169,770–777. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.
2015.0944.
*Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman,
J., & Mitchell, A. (2010). Writing themselves in 3: The third national
study on the sexual health and wellbeing of same sex attracted and
gender questioning young people. Carlton: National Centre in HIV
Social Research, La Trobe University.
*Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). Cyberbullying research summary:
Bullying, cyberbullying, and sexual orientation. Cyberbullying
Research Center. Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/
cyberbullying_sexual_orientation_fact_sheet.pdf.
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2014). Cyberbullying identification, pre-
vention, and response. Cyberbullying research center. Retrieved
from www.cyberbullying.us.
Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among
bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 36,984–994.
Institute of Medicine (US). (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender people: Building a foundation for better
understanding. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Kann, L., Olsen, E. O., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint,
K. H., et al. (2016). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and
health-related behaviors among students in grades 9–12 —United
States and selected sites, 2015. US Department of Health and
Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 65,
1–202. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6509a1.
Kochel, K. P., Ladd, G. W., & Rudolph, K. D. (2012). Longitudinal
associations among youth depressive symptoms, peer victimization,
and low peer acceptance: An interpersonal process perspective.
Child Development, 83, 637–650. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.2011.
01722.x.
*Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., &
Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 national school climate survey:
The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in
our nation’sschools. New York: GLSEN.
*Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A.,Giga,N.M.,Villenas,C.&
Danischewski, D. J. (2016). The 2015 national school climate sur-
vey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
queer youth in our nation’sschools.NewYork:GLSEN.
Kull, R. M., Kosciw, J. G., & Greytak, E. A. (2015). From statehouse to
schoolhouse: Anti-bullying policy efforts in US states and school
districts. New York: GLSEN.
Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media and technology overview 2015.
Pew Research Center.Retrievedfromhttp://www.pewinternet.org/
2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/.
Liboro, R. M., Travers, R., & St. John, A. (2015). Beyond the dialectics
and polemics: Canadian catholic schools addressing LGBT youth
issues. The High School Journal, 98, 158–180. doi:10.1353/hsj.
2015.0000.
*Mace, S., Campbell, M., & Whiteford, C. (2016). Coping with victim-
ization in heterosexual and sexual minority university students.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 28,159–170.
Montoro, R., Igartua, K., & Thombs, B. D. (2016). The association of
bullying with suicide ideation and attempt among adolescents with
different dimensions of sexual orientation. European Psychiatry, 33,
S71. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.984.
Palladino, B. E., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2016). Evidence-based
intervention against bullying and cyberbullying: Evaluation of the
NoTrap! program in two independent trials. Aggressive Behavior,
42,194–206.
Pham, T., & Adesman, A. (2015). Teen victimization: Prevalence and
consequences of traditional and cyberbullying. Current Opinion in
Pediatrics, 27,748–756.
*Priebe, G., & Svedin, C. G. (2012). Online or off-line victimization and
psychological well-being:A comparison of sexual-minority and het-
erosexual youth. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 21,569–
582.
*Ramsey, J. L., DiLalla, L. F., & McCrary, M. K. (2016). Cyber victim-
ization and depressive symptoms in sexual minority college stu-
dents. JournalofSchoolViolence,15,483–502.
*Rice, E., Petering, R., Rhoades, H., Winetrobe, H., Goldbach, J., Plant,
A., …Kordic, T. (2015). Cyberbullying perpetration and victimiza-
tion among middle-school students. American Journal of Public
Health, 105, e66-e72.
*Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Inequities in educational and
psychological outcomes between LGBTQ and straight students in
middle and high school. Educational Researcher, 40,315–330.
Schacter, H. L., & Juvonen, J. (2017). Depressive symptoms, friend dis-
tress, and self-blame: Risk factors for adolescent peer victimization.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.
appdev.2017.02.005.
*Schneider, S. K., O'Donnell, L., & Smith, E. (2015). Trends in
cyberbullying and school bullying victimization in a regional census
of high school students, 2006–2012. JournalofSchoolHealth,85,
611–620.
*Schneider, S. K., O'Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. W. (2012).
Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: A re-
gional census of high school students. American Journal of Public
Health, 102,171–177.
Journ Child Adol Trauma

Author's personal copy
Scola, B. (2014). Family contract for responsible electronic device use.
Pitcairn. Retrieved from http://www.pitcairn.com/electronic-
device-contract/.
Simmons, K., & Bynum, Y. (2014). Cyberbullying: Six things adminis-
trators can do. Education, 134,452–456.
*Sinclair, K. O., Bauman, S., Poteat, V. P., Koenig, B., & Russell, S. T.
(2012). Cyber and bias-based harassment: Associations with aca-
demic, substance use, and mental health problems. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 50,521–523.
Smith, P. K. (2016). Bullying: Definition, types, causes, consequences
and intervention. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10,
519–532. doi:10.1111/spc3.12266.
Smith, P. K., Del Barrio, C., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2013). Definitions of
bullying and cyberbullying: How useful are the terms. In S.
Bauman, D. Cross, & J. Walker (Eds.), Principles of cyberbullying
research: Definitions, measures, and methodology (pp. 26–40).
London: Routledge.
*Sterzing, P. R., Ratliff, G. A., Gartner, R. E., McGeough, B. L., &
Johnson, K. C. (2017). Social ecological correlates of
polyvictimization among a national sample of transgender,
genderqueer, and cisgender sexual minority adolescents. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 67,1–12. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.02.017.
*Stoll, L. C., & Block, R. (2015). Intersectionality and cyberbullying: A
study of cybervictimization in a Midwestern high school.
Computers in Human Behavior, 52,387–397.
Stop Bullying (2015). Policies and laws. Retrieved from http://www.
stopbullying.gov/laws/.
*Taylor, C. & Peter, T., with McMinn, T.L., Elliott, T., Beldom, S., Ferry,
A., Gross, Z., Paquin, S., & Schachter, K. (2011). Every class in
every school: The first national climate survey on homophobia,
biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools. Final report.
Toronto: Egale Canada Human Rights Trust.
*Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Kiperman, S., & Howard, A. (2013). Technology
hurts? Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth perspectives of technology
and cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 12,27–44.
*Walker, C. (2015). An analysis of cyberbullying among sexual minority
university students. Journal of Higher Education Theory and
Practice, 15,44–50.
*Wensley, K., & Campbell, M. (2012). Heterosexual and nonheterosex-
ual young university students’involvement in traditional and cyber
forms of bullying. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 15,649–654.
White, H. D. (1994). Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In
H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research
synthesis (pp. 41–56). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Systematic review of
theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: Facts, knowledge,
prevention, and intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23,
1–21.
Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Marín-López, I. (2016). Cyberbullying: A
systematic review of research, its prevalence and assessment issues
in Spanish studies. Psicología Educativa, 22,5–18. doi:10.1016/j.
pse.2016.03.002.
Journ Child Adol Trauma