Accepted Manuscript

Bullying and cyberbullying in polish elementary and middle

schools: Validation of questionnaires and nature of the phenomena

Estera Twardowska-Staszek, Izabela Zych, Rosario Ortega-Ruiz

PII: S0190-7409(18)30550-4
DOI: doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.045
Reference: CYSR 4058
To appear in: Children and Youth Services Review
Received date: 6 July 2018
Revised date: 25 October 2018
Accepted date: 25 October 2018

Please cite this article as: Estera Twardowska-Staszek, Izabela Zych, Rosario Ortega-
Ruiz , Bullying and cyberbullying in polish elementary and middle schools: Validation
of questionnaires and nature of the phenomena. Cysr (2018), doi:10.1016/
j.childyouth.2018.10.045

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Bullying and cyberbullying in Polish elementary and middle schools: Validation of

questionnaires and nature of the phenomena

Estera Twardowska-Staszeka, Izabela Zychb , and Rosario Ortega-Ruizb

a
Akademia Ignatianum w Krakowie, Poland b Universidad de Cordoba, Spain

PT
Correspondence: Izabela Zych, Universidad de Cordoba, Avda. San Alberto Magno s/n, 14001
Cordoba, Spain.

RI
SC
NU
Abstract

Research on bullying and cyberbullying is advancing at the international level, but

MA

there are still some geographic areas where the number of studies on these topics is low.

Little is known about bullying and cyberbullying in Poland and validated questionnaires
ED

to measure these two aggressive behaviors are still needed. This study was conducted

with 1,052 Polish elementary and middle school students. Two European questionnaires
T
EP

to measure bullying and cyberbullying were validated and different bullying behaviors

and roles were described. It was found that rates of bullying and cyberbullying in
C

Poland are high. Bullying is more prevalent than cyberbullying. Bullying victimization
AC

was more prevalent in girls and in younger children when compared to boys and

adolescents. Bullying perpetration and being a bully/victim was more prevalent in boys

and adolescents when compared to girls and younger children. Involvement in any

cyberbullying role was more prevalent in adolescents than in younger children. Being a

cyberbully/victim was more prevalent in boys, and no gender differences were found in

other cyberbullying roles. There was a strong overlap between bullying and

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

cyberbullying. Results of this study have implications for policy and practice and show

that anti-bullying programs in Poland are urgently needed.

Keywords: Bullying, Cyberbullying, Poland, Validation, Questionnaire,

Prevalence

PT
School bullying is a repeated and long-term aggressive behavior present among

RI
students (Farrington, 1993; Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, & Liefooghe, 2002). Perpetrators

SC
of bullying intentionally harm victims who cannot defend themselves easily. There is an

imbalance of power between perpetrators and victims (Smith & Brain, 2000) in which
NU
victims might be physically or psychologically less strong or outnumbered. Bullying is

a complex psychosocial immoral phenomenon (Ortega, 2010) that occurs within a peer
MA

group in which students assume a series of roles such as bullies, victims, bully-victims

and bystanders (Salmivalli, 2010).

ED

There are different types of bullying behaviors described by research studies in

the field. On the one hand, direct bullying is defined as targeting the victim in an
T
EP

explicit and direct way including physical aggression such as hitting, kicking or pushing

the victim, and verbal aggression such as insulting or name-calling. On the other hand,
C

indirect or relational bullying is more hidden and less explicit, including isolating the
AC

victim or spreading rumors (Rivers & Smith, 1994).

Nowadays, interpersonal relationships among young people are frequently

initiated and maintained through both, online and offline interactions. Cyberspace is a

new context for prosocial behaviors among adolescents (Erreygers, Vandebosch,

Vranjes, Baillien, & De Witte, 2018). At the same time, it is a context for different types

of antisocial behaviors including a new type of bullying called cyberbullying.

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Cyberbullying is defined as frequent and long-term aggressive behavior intentionally

perpetrated by some students against weaker peers through electronic devices (Smith,

Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell, & Tippett, 2008). Although there are many studies

that focus primarily on cyberbullying, there is a strong overlap between bullying and

cyberbullying (Baldry, Farrington, & Sorrentino, 2016; Beltrán-Catalán, Zych, Ortega-

Ruiz, & Llorent, 2018). A cross-European study focused on the definition of

PT
cyberbullying showed that, besides some nuances, the criteria used by adolescents to

RI
define cyberbullying were similar to those used to define bullying (Menesini et al.,

SC
2012). These studies suggest that cyberbullying is a form of bullying and it is

reasonable to conduct comprehensive projects that focus jointly on bullying and

NU
cyberbullying.

Research on bullying started in the 1970s and projects on cyberbullying started

MA

in the first decade of the 21st century (Zych, Ortega-Ruiz, & Del Rey, 2015). Although

this field of study has been very productive, and the number of publications on the topic
ED

increased exponentially throughout the past decades, there are still many gaps in

knowledge that need to be addressed. Most of the studies in this field were conducted in
T
EP

English-speaking countries and Western European countries (Smith & Berkkun, 2017).

Bullying has very serious consequences such as depression (Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, &
C

Loeber, 2011b), drug use (Ttofi, Farrington, Losel, Crago, & Theodorakis, 2016),
AC

offending (Ttofi, Farrington, Losel, & Loeber, 2011a), and suicidal thoughts and

behaviors (Holt et al., 2015). Nevertheless, bullying and cyberbullying are rarely

studied in certain geographic areas such as Eastern Europe. It is still necessary to gain

knowledge about bullying and cyberbullying in non-English speaking countries such as

Poland and therefore, validated instruments and research on this topic conducted with

Polish children and adolescents are urgently needed.

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Bullying and cyberbullying in Polish schools

Research shows that bullying and cyberbullying are present and prevalent

across the world. A meta-analysis of 80 international studies conducted by Modecki,

Minchin, Harbaugh, Guerra, and Runions (2014) showed that around 36% of children

PT
were victims of bullying and around 35% were bullies worldwide. Regarding

RI
cyberbullying, around 15% were victims and 15% were cyberbullies worldwide.

SC
Prevalence rates varied across studies depending on the measurement instruments used.

Smith et al. (2002) compared 67 terms used by children and adolescents to define
NU
bullying in 14 countries. They concluded that bullying was prevalent in all these

geographic areas but there were some cultural differences in the definitions.
MA

In this international context, little is known about nature, definitions and

prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying in Poland. There are only a few studies on the
ED

topic and most of them show high prevalence. Poland appears among the Inclusiveness

Target Countries in Horizon 2020, the most important EU Research and Innovation
T
EP

program. According to a recent EU report, more international high-quality research is

needed in Poland given that research investment in the country has not been sufficient
C

and there have been several difficulties regarding strategies, management and
AC

performance in research and innovation (Marklund et al., 2017). Within this context,

research about bullying and cyberbullying is also needed.

According to the international Health Behavior in School-Aged Children

(HBSC) study, victimization at least two to three times a month in the past couple of

months was reported by 8-12% of Polish girls and 11-17% of Polish boys aged 11 to 15

years old. Bullying perpetration was reported by 4-7% of Polish girls and 10-15% of

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Polish boys (Inchley et al., 2016). A study conducted with adolescents aged 11 to 15

years old (Pyzalski, 2012) reported prevalence of bullying victimization of 11.8%,

perpetration rates of 26.9%, and 16.9% of bully/victims. Cyberbullying was less

prevalent than face-to-face bullying, with 6.6% of participants reporting

cybervictimization, 19.6% of participants reporting cyberperpetration, and 5.9% of

participants reporting being cyberbully/victims. In general, more boys than girls were

PT
involved in bullying and cyberbullying.

RI
A cross-European study with adolescents from six different countries

SC
including 900 Polish students showed cybervictimization rates of 6.1%,

cyberperpetration rates of 6.8% and 4% of cyberbully/victims in Poland (Del Rey et al.,

NU
2015). These rates were similar to rates in other countries. Another study on

cyberbullying (Tomczyk, 2017), used a questionnaire adapted from Pyzalski (2012) and
MA

was recently conducted with more than 1800 Polish adolescents (around 15 years old).

No overall prevalence was reported but an analysis of several forms of cyberaggression

ED

and cybervictimization showed prevalence rates of around 10% to 30% in items on

victimization and perpetration. A study with Polish adolescents aged 16 to 21 years

T
EP

(Zych, Ortega-Ruiz, & Llorent, 2017) showed face-to-face victimization rates of 18.7%

(2.4% severe victims), perpetration rates of 13.1% (1.5% severe perpetrators) and
C

44.1% of bully/victims (19.6% severe bully victims). Compared to international studies,

AC

rates of bullying in Polish adolescents are rather high and rates of cyberbullying are

similar to those found in other countries (Zych, Farrington, Llorent, & Ttofi, 2017).

Measures of bullying and cyberbullying in Poland and internationally

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Even though some descriptive studies reported rates of bullying and

cyberbullying in Poland, research on this topic is in its early stages in this geographic

area. Validated instruments to measure bullying and cyberbullying in Poland are still

needed. Measuring bullying and cyberbullying with a single item or a series of items

leads to poor psychometric properties such as low reliability and validity when

compared to multi-item instruments (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). Reliability refers to

PT
measuring bullying consistently with low measurement error whereas validity refers to

RI
the accuracy of a scale to measure a specific concept (Auty, Farrington, & Coid, 2015)

SC
such as bullying. Multi-item questionnaires are popular in modern psychological and

educational research because it is possible to test their psychometric properties. After a

NU
rigorous process of translation and back translation, questionnaires with excellent

psychometric properties in one country can be adapted and validated in other countries.
MA

A rigorous validation study requires also confirming their factor structure in the new

context (Thompson, 2004).

ED

Most studies on bullying in Poland used ad hoc questionnaires with

theoretically driven items not treated as scales (see Zych et al., 2017 for review). Some
T
EP

studies used questionnaires inspired on measures used in other countries, but without

conducting validation studies in Poland. Among them, some (Mazur & Kololo, 2006)
C

measured bullying with an instrument inspired on a broadly used Olweus Bully/Victim

AC

Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996). Zych et al. (2017) used a subscale of peer aggression

and victimization from a questionnaire validated in Spain to measure different aspects

of the school climate.

Some researchers designed ad hoc questionnaires to measure bullying and

cyberbullying in Poland (Barlinska & Wojtasik, 2008; Pyzalski,2012). There were also

studies that used manipulations to measure cyberbullying with an example of

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

cyberbullying behaviors such as asking students about what they would do if they

received a compromising picture of another student (Barlinska, Szuster, & Winiewski,

2013).

Many different questionnaires are used to measure bullying and cyberbullying

in different countries. Among them, the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus,

1996) is a popular measure of bullying (Swearer, Siebecker, Johansen-Frerichs, &

PT
Wang, 2010) which provides a definition of bullying and asks about its frequency.

RI
There are also many questionnaires that were designed more recently with a behavior-

SC
based approach. These questionnaires have several advantages such as not labelling the

students as bullies or victims and therefore avoiding stigma (Furlong, Sharkey, Felix,
NU
Tanigawa, & Greif Green, 2010). Given that definitions of bullying vary across contexts

(Smith et al., 2002) instruments that focus on specific bullying and cyberbullying
MA

behaviors are useful when conducting cross-national studies.

The European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (EBIP-Q) and the

ED

European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIP-Q) were designed

and validated in an international context with the objective of providing reliable and
T
EP

valid measure of bullying and cyberbullying (Ortega-Ruiz, Del Rey, & Casas, 2016).

These questionnaires include direct and indirect bullying and cyberbullying behaviors,
C

with specific items focused on victimization and perpetration. The ECIP-Q was
AC

validated in a cross-European study including six different countries (Del Rey et al.,

2015), showing excellent psychometric properties. The validation study included

adolescents from Poland. Both questionnaires (EBIP-Q and ECIP-Q) were also

validated in Spain (Ortega-Ruiz et al., 2016) and Colombia (Herrera, Casas, Romera,

Ortega-Ruiz, & Del Rey, 2017; Herrera, Romera, & Ortega-Ruiz, 2017). These

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

instruments showed excellent psychometric properties in all the validation studies

including excellent reliability and fit in confirmatory factor analyses.

The current study

Research on bullying and cyberbullying in Poland is still in its early stages. It

is still necessary to validate questionnaires to measure bullying and cyberbullying in

PT
Poland and include Poland in the international projects about bullying and

RI
cyberbullying. This would only be possible if bullying and cyberbullying are measured

SC
with validated instruments that are being used internationally. Only if bullying and

cyberbullying are adequately measured, it is possible to implement and evaluate anti-

NU
bullying interventions. Thus the current study was conducted to validate both EBIP-Q

and ECIP-Q with a broad sample of more than 1000 Polish children and adolescents.
MA

First, psychometric properties of the questionnaires were tested and then, the

prevalence rates of different bullying and cyberbullying behaviors were reported.

ED

Children and adolescents were classified into bullying roles and the prevalence of each

bullying and cyberbullying role was reported for the whole sample, separately for girls
T
EP

and boys, and for younger and older participants. An overlap among bullying and

cyberbullying roles was also investigated. It was hypothesized that the Polish versions
C

of the questionnaires would show good psychometric properties. Bullying rates were
AC

expected to be high and cyberbullying rates were expected to be similar in comparison

to international research. An overlap among bullying and cyberbullying roles was

expected to be found.

Methods

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Participants

A sample of 1,052 students enrolled in 4 primary and 2 middle schools

participated in this study. Schools were located in the Lesser Poland geographic area, 4

in a big city and 2 in a town. Among the participants, 55% were enrolled in primary

PT
schools, Grades 4 to 7 (n = 580) and 45% were enrolled in middle schools, Grades 2 and

RI
3 (n = 472). Participants´ ages ranged from 9 to 16 (M = 12.5, SD = 1.98), 44,9% were

SC
boys (n = 472), 54,4% were girls (n = 572), and 8 participants did not disclose their

gender. All the participants were Caucasian with Polish nationality.

NU
This study was conducted during the first year of an education reform

(2017/2018) after which middle schools are going to be abolished in Poland. Thus, this
MA

was the first academic year in which primary schools included more than 6 grades and

there was no Grade 1 in middle schools. Among the primary school students, 39.3%
ED

reported using the Internet a couple of times a year or less, 11.4% used the Internet

several times a month, and 49.3% used the Internet several times a week or more.
T
EP

Among the middle school students, 6.4% used the Internet a couple of times a year or

less, 2.5% used the Internet several times a month, and 91.1% used the Internet several
C

times a week or more.

AC

Instruments

This study was conducted with two European questionnaires broadly used and

validated at the international level. These questionnaires were translated into Polish (see

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

appendix) by one of the authors of this study and back-translated by a professional

translation service.

The European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (Ortega-Ruiz et

al.,2016), is a self-report instrument that includes seven items on bullying victimization

and seven items on bullying perpetration (see table 1 for details). Participants are asked

to choose an answer regarding the frequency of each behavior on a 5-point Likert scale

PT
ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (several times a week). In this study conducted at the

RI
beginning of a school year (September and October), participants were asked to think

SC
about the past school year. This questionnaire was created as a part of a European

project (Brighi et al., 2012). The questionnaire has been validated in Spain (Ortega-Ruiz
NU
et al., 2016) with an excellent reliability (Cronbach´s α = .84 for both scales). It is also

used at the international level, with an excellent reliability in Colombia (Herrera-López

MA

et al., 2017) (perpetration McDonald´s Ω = .82, victimization Ω = .78). This

questionnaire shows good psychometric properties in the current study (see results).
ED

The European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (Del Rey et al.,

2015; Ortega-Ruiz et al., 2016), is a self-report focused on cyberperpetration and

T
EP

cybervictimization (see table 2 for details). The questionnaire consists of 11 questions

on different forms of cyberbullying victimization and 11 questions on different forms of

C

cyberbullying perpetration. These questions are answered on a 5-point Likert scale

AC

ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (several times a week) regarding the past school year. A

cross-European validation study showed an excellent reliability with Cronbach´s alphas

of α = .97 for cybervictimization and α = .93 for cyberperpetration (Del Rey et al.,

2015). This questionnaire showed excellent psychometric properties in the current

sample (see results).

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Procedure

This was a cross-sectional study with a survey, conducted according to

national and international ethical standards. Questionnaires were translated and back-

translated from Spanish into Polish by a native speaker in both languages and an official

translation service. Schools were contacted and the required authorizations and consents

were obtained. Questionnaires were filled in by the participants during regular

PT
classroom hours at the beginning of the 2017/2018 school year (September and October

RI
2017).

SC
The aims of the study were explained, and participants were asked to fill in the

surveys according to the situation in their school during the past school year, taking into
NU
account that there were no correct and incorrect answers. They were supervised by a

senior researcher (one of the authors of this study). In grades 4 to 6 (Primary school),
MA

questions were read aloud. Surveys were anonymous, and participants had the right to

withdraw from the study at any moment. All the students agreed to participate and none
ED

of them decided to withdraw. Nevertheless, 26 students did not respond to the

questionnaires used in this study and therefore their data were not used in the study.
T
EP

Data analyses
C
AC

Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with EQS 6.2. software to validate the

questionnaires. The estimation method was maximum likelihood robust method based

on polychoric correlations given that data were not normally distributed and ordinal.

Model fit was tested with a combination of different indices including a CFI value

above .90, RMSEA below .08, NFI above .90, CFI and TLI close to 1 (Bentler, 1990).

Given that the number of degrees of freedom in the case of bullying was relatively low

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(see results), less strict criteria such as RMSEA below .10 combined with other indices

were also considered as acceptable (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2015). Descriptive

statistics such as means, standard deviations, and differences between groups (chi-

square test) were calculated with PASW-Statistics 21. Groups such as girls and boys,

and younger and older students were compared.

PT
Students were classified into bullying and cyberbullying roles according to the

criteria broadly used in international research (see Zych, Ortega, & Marín-López, 2016).

RI
Victimization was recoded into 0 (never, or one to two times a year in all the items) and

SC
1 (once a month or more in any item ). Perpetration was recoded into 0 (never, or once

or twice a year in all the items) and 2(once a month or more in at least one item).
NU
Victimization and Perpetration were summed up obtaining: 0 = uninvolved, 1 = victims,
MA

2 = perpetrators and 3 = bully/victims. First, bullying and cyberbullying roles were

reported as usually done in the field (see Zych et al., 2017 for details on this topic) and

roles that included both bullying and cyberbullying were reported afterwards.
ED

Odds ratios were calculated with Campbell Collaboration online calculator

T
EP

(https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/effect-size-calculato.html) to measure effect

sizes regarding the differences between Primary and Middle School students, and girls
C

versus boys in bullying and cyberbullying roles. Each role was compared to the
AC

uninvolved children. Odds ratios of 1 showed no significant difference between the

groups. Odds ratios smaller than 1 showed higher prevalence in Primary School (versus

middle school) or higher prevalence in girls (versus boys). Odds ratios above 1 showed

higher prevalence in Middle School (versus primary school) or higher prevalence in

boys (versus girls). Confidence intervals that included 1 showed that differences were

not statistically significant.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Results

Validation of the questionnaires

Confirmatory Factor Analyses showed good psychometric properties of both

questionnaires. The European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire was found to

PT
have an adequate fit with a two-factor structure. Factor 1, with seven items, focuses on

RI
victimization and factor 2, also with 7 items, focuses on perpetration. All the factor

SC
loadings were high, between .64 and .89. Both subscales had an excellent reliability

with Cronbach´s alphas of .85 in both, perpetration and victimization. See figure 1 for
NU
more details regarding the overall model fit and factor loadings.

The model fit was good in the Primary Education subsample (S/B Chi-square =
MA

348.91, df = 76, NFI = .94, NNFI = .95, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08), acceptable in the

Secondary Education subsample (S/B Chi-square = 591.40, df = 76, NFI = .91, NNFI =
ED

.91, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .12), good in girls (S/B Chi-square = 390.08, df = 76, NFI =

.94, NNFI = .94, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .09) and acceptable in boys S/B Chi-square =
T
EP

606.24, df = 76, NFI = .91, NNFI = .91, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .12)
C

Insert Figure 1
AC

The European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire showed

excellent psychometric properties. A two-factor structure was confirmed. Factor 1

included 11 items focused on cybervictimization and factor 2 had 11 items focused on

cyberperpetration. Both subscales showed excellent Cronbach´s alphas

(cybervictimization α = .90 and cyberperpetration α = .89). Factor loadings were very

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

high, ranging from .72 to .91. See figure 2 for more details regarding the overall model

fit and factor loadings.

The model fit was very good in the Primary Education subsample (S/B Chi-

square = 396.77, df = 208, NFI = .98, NNFI = .99, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .05), in the

Secondary Education subsample (S/B Chi-square = 674.50, df = 208, NFI = .97, NNFI

= .98, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07), in girls S/B Chi-square = 665.32, df = 208, NFI = .96,

PT
NNFI = .97, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07) and in boys S/B Chi-square = 539.46, df = 208,

RI
NFI = .99, NNFI = .99, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06)

SC
Insert Figure 2
NU
MA

Bullying and cyberbullying behaviors

Tables 1 and 2 show different bullying and cyberbullying behaviors reported by

ED

the participants, including perpetration and victimization. Being insulted and insulting
T

were the most frequently reported behaviors in face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying.
EP

Physical aggression (perpetration and victimization) were also among the most frequent

bullying behaviors. Rejection and exclusion were among the most frequent
C

cyberbullying behaviors.
AC

Insert Table 1 and Table 2 here

Bullying and cyberbullying roles and prevalence

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Students were assigned into bullying and cyberbullying roles with conservative

criteria (at least once a month or more during the previous school year). Figure 3shows

percentages of participants involved in each bullying and cyberbullying role,

respectively. Only 29.5% of children were not involved in any bullying role, and 66.8%

were not involved in any cyberbullying role.

PT
Insert Figure 3

RI
Bullying and cyberbullying roles in younger and older students (Primary vs.

SC
Middle Schools), and in girls versus boys are reported in table 3. Bullying victimization
NU
was more prevalent among younger children and girls whereas bullying perpetration

and being a bully/victim were more prevalent among adolescents and boys.
MA

Insert Table 3
T ED

Bullying and cyberbullying roles were analyzed jointly to discover the relation
EP

between these two types of aggressive behavior (see table 4). In general, bullying was
C

more prevalent than cyberbullying, and 39.7% of students involved in different bullying
AC

roles were not involved in cyberbullying. However, almost all the students involved in

cyberbullying were also involved in bullying (30.7% out of 33.3%). Most of the

cybervictims were also face-to-face bully/victims and victims of face-to-face bullying.

Most of the cyberperpetrators were also face-to-face bully/victims, perpetrators and

victims. Most of the cyberbully/victims were also face-to-face bully/victims.

Insert Table 4

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Strong correlations were found between the total scores in bullying and

cyberbullying victimization (r = .62, p < .01), bullying victimization and cyberbullying

perpetration (r = .34, p < .01). There was also a strong relation between bullying and

cyberbullying perpetration (r = .66, p < .01), and bullying perpetration, and

PT
cyberbullying victimization (r = .57, p < .01).

RI
SC
Discussion
NU
School bullying and cyberbullying are present and prevalent around the world.
MA

Research showed that these aggressive behaviors have very serious short and long-term

consequences (Ttofi et al., 2011a, 2011b; Van Geel Vedder, & Tanilon, 2014). Thus,
ED

researchers and practitioners in many different countries recognize that bullying and

cyberbullying are extremely harmful for individuals and societies. For this reason, the
T

number of studies on bullying and cyberbullying increased exponentially in the past

EP

decades (Smith & Berkkun, 2017). Although this research field has been very fruitful,
C

there are still many gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. The number of studies
AC

on bullying and cyberbullying in certain geographic areas such as Eastern Europe is still

low. Therefore, the current study was conducted to validate two European

questionnaires (EBIP-Q and ECIP-Q) to measure bullying and cyberbullying in Poland.

Prevalence of different bullying and cyberbullying behaviors, together with bullying

and cyberbullying roles in Polish girls and boys, children and adolescents, were also

reported.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

This study found good psychometric properties of both questionnaires (EBIP-

Q and ECIP-Q) in Poland. These instruments have excellent psychometric properties

also in other countries (Del Rey et al., 2015; Herrera-López, Casas et al., 2017; Herrera-

López, Romera et al., 2017; Ortega et al., 2016). Based on the results of this study, these

instruments can now be used for research in Poland, including national and international

studies. Cross-cultural studies including Poland can now be conducted, making it

PT
possible to include Poland in the mainstream research on bullying and cyberbullying.

RI
These validated instruments can also be used in educational practice to improve school

SC
climate in Poland. Poland is one of the inclusiveness target countries within the

European Union research frameworks (see for example www.cost.eu). This study is an
NU
important step forward towards this inclusiveness focused on a crucial topic regarding

the education of European citizens.

MA

It is difficult to compare rates of bullying and cyberbullying among different

cultures and geographic areas. There are certain differences regarding definitions and
ED

perceptions of bullying and cyberbullying among countries (Smith et al., 2002).

Prevalence rates also vary greatly depending on how bullying and cyberbullying are
T
EP

measured (Zych et al., 2016). Notwithstanding these limitations, it is possible to analyze

general trends focusing on studies that used similar methodologies and measurement
C

instruments. This is especially true for this study that used a Polish version of
AC

instruments that are being used also in other geographic areas.

Regarding bullying, our study showed high prevalence in comparison to other

studies that used the same questionnaire (EBIP-Q). Overall, our study found that 6.5%

of participants were perpetrators, 31% of the participants were victims, and 33% of

participants were bully/victims. A study with Colombian adolescents (aged 11 to 19

years) with the same instrument and criteria used to classify students into bullying roles

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

showed perpetration rates of 4.5%, victimization rates of 23.4% and 14% of

bully/victims (Herrera-López et al., 2017). Also with the same criteria and

questionnaires, Romera et al. (2017) found that among Elementary School students in

Spain, around 30% were victims (vs. 39.3% in our study), around 3% were perpetrators

(vs. 3.7% in our study), and around 15% were bully/victims (vs. 26.4% in our study).

They also found that, among Secondary Education students in Spain, around 20% were

PT
victims (similarly around 20% in our study), around 6% were perpetrators (vs. 10% in

RI
our study), and around 17% were bully/victims (vs. 41.1% in our study). Another study

SC
with Spanish adolescents, again with the same questionnaire and criteria, found

victimization rates of around 23%, perpetration rates of around 5%, and around 16% of
NU
bully/victims (Zych, Beltrán-Catalán, Ortega-Ruiz, & Llorent, 2018). Therefore,

bullying rates in Poland are high in comparison to Spain and Colombia. They are also
MA

high in comparison to other countries (see Zych et al., 2017 for a review).

Regarding cyberbullying, the current study reported 5.2% of perpetrators,

ED

12.9% of victims and 15.2% of cyberbully/victims. Using the same questionnaire and

classification criteria, it was found that 2.5% of Colombian adolescents were

T
EP

cyberbullies, 10.7% were cybervictims and 5.5% were cyberbully/victims (Herrera-

López et al., 2017). In Spain, Romera et al. (2017) reported around 9% of cybervictims
C

in Elementary Schools (vs. around 10% in the current study), around 2% of perpetrators
AC

(vs. 2.4% in the current study), and around 7% of cyberbully/victims (vs. 7.3% in the

current study). In Secondary Education, they reported around 10% of cybervictims (vs.

16.2% in the current study), around 5% of perpetrators (vs. 8.5% in the current study)

and around 7% of cyberbully/victims (vs. 24.3% in the current study). Another study

with Spanish adolescents with the same instrument and criteria found around 13% of

cybervictims, around 4% of cyberperpetratos and around 11% of cyberbully/victims

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(Zych et al., 2018). In a cross-European study of adolescents including Poland, Spain,

Italy, UK, Germany, and Greece, also with the same questionnaire, and criteria, rates of

cybervictimization ranged from around 4% to around 10%, rates of cyberperpetration

ranged from around 1% to around 8%, and rates of being a cyberbully/victim ranged

from around 2% to around 6% (Del Rey et al., 2015). Thus, prevalence rates of

cyberbullying in Polish elementary schools are similar to prevalence rates in other

PT
countries whereas cyberbullying rates in Polish middle schools in the current study are

RI
high.

SC
Anti-bullying and anti-cyberbullying interventions are being conducted around

the world. A recent meta-analysis of anti-bullying programs including 100 evaluations

NU
in many different countries (Gaffney, Ttofi, & Farrington, 2018). A recent meta-

analysis of interventions against cyberbullying (Gaffney, Farrington, Espelage, & Ttofi,

MA

2018) included 26 evaluations conducted around the world. None of the programs

included in either of these meta-analyses were conducted in Poland. Rigby and Smith
ED

(2011) found that, in general, bullying rates decreased from 1990 to 2009 which was

attributed to effective anti-bullying programs conducted worldwide. Given that these

T
EP

interventions are generally effective in reducing bullying and cyberbullying (Gaffney,

Farrington et al., 2018; Gaffney, Ttofi et al., 2018) it is possible that high rates of
C

bullying and cyberbullying in Poland are related to the lack of interventions. Therefore,
AC

anti-bullying and anti-cyberbullying programs in Poland are urgently needed.

Our results show that bullying victimization was more prevalent in girls than

in boys, and in younger children when compared to adolescents. Perpetration and being

a bully/victim was more prevalent in boys and adolescents when compared to girls and

younger children. Regarding cyberbullying, involvement in any cyberbullying role was

more prevalent in adolescents than in younger children. Being a cyberbully/victim was

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

more prevalent in boys, and no gender differences were found in other cyberbullying

roles. There was a strong overlap between bullying and cyberbullying. Research in other

countries show that boys are usually more involved than girls, the relationship between

bullying and age is not clear (see the review by Zych et al., 2017) and there is an

overlap between bullying and cyberbullying (Baldry et al., 2016; Beltrán-Catalán et al.,

2018).

PT
It is possible that relatively low levels of cyberbullying in Polish elementary

RI
schools are related to the fact that around a half of the participants reported not using the

SC
Internet on a daily basis. It is also possible that high rates of bully/victims and

cyberbully/victims denote that students have difficulties in solving problems peacefully

NU
or coping in difficult situations. This is in line with other studies that showed that more

than half of the Polish students show high level of school maladjustment (Twardowska-
MA

Staszek, 2016). A high prevalence rates of the bully/victim role might be related to the

lack of anti-bullying programs which usually teach students how to defend themselves
ED

in a non-violent way and include protocols in schools that stop bullying. High

prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying in countries with a low number of anti-

T
EP

bullying interventions might also be caused by the fact that there is no explicit rejection

of these behaviors in the school culture. All this information might be very useful to
C

conduct future research and to design tailored interventions against bullying and
AC

cyberbullying in Poland.

This study has several limitations such as the use of self-reports only. Future

research could benefit also from using teacher-reports or peer-reports regarding

involvement in bullying and cyberbullying. Given that participants were selected by

convenience, future research with representative samples in Poland could shed new light

on bullying and cyberbullying in this geographic area. Future cross-national and cross-

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

cultural studies that statistically compare Poland to other countries could be very useful.

It would also be useful to discover predictors or consequences of bullying and

cyberbullying in Poland and compare them to other countries. These could include

general school climate, social and emotional competencies, parenting, cultural

differences and wellbeing. Even with some limitations, the current study can be used as

an initial step to decrease bullying and cyberbullying in this geographic area. Its results

PT
can be very useful to guide educational research, policy and practice in Poland and at

RI
the European level.

Acknowledgements

SC
Part of this study was supported by the project “E-Intelligence: risks and opportunities of the
emotional competencies expressed online” [PSI2015-64114-R] granted by the Spanish Ministry
NU
of Economy and Competitiveness within the I+D+I 2015 National Program for Research Aimed
at the Challenges of the Society (RETOS) to the second author
MA
ED

References
T

Auty, K. M., Farrington, D. P., & Coid, J. W. (2015). The validity of self-reported
EP

convictions in a community sample: Findings from the Cambridge Study in

Delinquent Development. European Journal of Criminology, 12, 562-580.

C
AC

Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Sorrentino, A. (2016). Cyberbullying in youth. A

pattern of disruptive behaviour. Psicología Educativa, 22, 19–26.

Barlinska, J., & Wojtasik, Ł. (2008). Peer violence and electronic media – Research

and social campaign. In M. Barbovschi, & M. Diaconescu (Eds.), Teenagers’

actions and interactions online in Central and Eastern Europe. Potentials

and empowerment, risks and victimization (pp. 281–299). Cluj-Napoca,

Romania: Cluj University Press Babes- Bolyai University.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Barlińska, J., Szuster, A., & Winiewski, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among adolescent

bystanders: Role of the communication medium, form of violence, and

empathy. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 37-51.

Beltrán-Catalán, M., Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Llorent, V. J. (2018). Victimisation

through bullying and cyberbullying: Emotional intelligence, severity of

victimisation and technology use in different types of victims. Psicothema,

PT
30, 183-188.

RI
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychological

SC
Bulletin, 107, 238-46.

Brighi, A., Ortega, R., Scheitauer, H., Smith, P.K., Tsormpatzoudis, C., Barkoukis, V.,
NU
. . . del Rey, R. (2012). European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire
MA

(EBIPQ). Available at: http://www.bullyingandcyber.net

Del Rey, R., Casas, J. A., Ortega-Ruiz, R., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H.,

Smith, P., ... & Guarini, A. (2015). Structural validation and cross-cultural
ED

robustness of the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire.

T

Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 141-147.

EP

Erreygers, S., Vandebosch, H., Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2018).

Development of a measure of adolescents’ online prosocial behavior. Journal

C
AC

of Children and Media, Online First.

Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. Crime and Justice,

17, 381-458.

Furlong, M. J., Sharkey, J. D., Felix, E. D., Tanigawa, D., & Green, J. G. (2010).

Bullying assessment: A call for increased precision of self-reporting

procedures. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer & D. L. Espelage (Eds.).

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective. New York:

Routledge.

Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., Espelage, D. L., & Ttofi, M. M. (2018). Are

cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic

and meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, online first.

Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of

PT
school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review.

RI
Aggression and Violent Behavior, online first.

SC
Herrera-López, M., Casas, J. A., Romera, E. M., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R.

(2017). Validation of the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project

NU
Questionnaire for Colombian adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and

Social Networking. Online First.

MA

Herrera-López, M., Romera, E., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2017). Bullying y cyberbullying en

Colombia; coocurrencia en adolescentes escolarizados. Revista

ED

Latinoamericana de Psicología, 49, 163-172.

Holt, M. K., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Polanin, J. R., Holland, K. M., DeGue, S.,
T
EP

Matjasko, J. L., . . . Reid, G. (2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and

behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Pediatrics, 135, E496-E509.

C

Inchley, J., Currie, D., Young, D., Samdal, O., Torsheim, T., Augustson, L.,
AC

…Barnekow, V. (Eds.). (2016). Growing up unequal: Gender and

socioeconomic differences in young people’s health and well-being.

Copenhagen: WHO.

Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA

in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Resarch,

44, 486-507.

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Marklund, G., Naczinsky, C., Ziarko, W., Winckler, G., Puukka, J., File, J. M., ... &

Melin, G. (2017). Peer Review: Poland's Higher Education and Science

System: Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility. Brussels: European

Commission.

Mazur, J., & Kołoło, H. (2006). Zwiazek miedzy przemoca˛ rowiesnicza w szkole a

samopoczuciem psychicznym uczniow gimnazjum [Relationship between

PT
peer violence and psychological wellbeing in gymnasium students]. Dziecko

RI
Krzywdzone. Teoria, Badania i Praktyka, 14, 80–92.

SC
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement :

Some critical considerations. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie /Journal of

NU
Psychology, 217, 230–232.

Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B. E., Frisén, A., Berne, … Smith, P. K. (2012).
MA

Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six

European countries. Cyberpsychology Behavior, and Social Networking, 15,

ED

455-463

Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014).
T
EP

Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and

traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 602–611.

C

Olweus D. (1996). The revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Bergen: Research

AC

Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), University of Bergen,

Norway.

Ortega, R. (2010). Agresividad injustificada, bullying y violencia escolar. Madrid:

Alianza Editorial.

Ortega-Ruiz, R., Del Rey, R., & Casas, J. A. (2016). Evaluar el bullying y el

ciberbullying: Validación espanola del EBIP-Q y del ECIP-Q [Evaluation of

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

bullying and cyberbullying: Spanish validation of EBIP-Q and ECIP-Q].

Psicología Educativa, 22, 71–79.

Pyżalski, J. (2012). Agresja elektroniczna i cyberbullying jako nowe ryzykowne

zachowania młodzieży [Electronic aggression and cyberbullying as new risky

behaviors in youth]. Kraków: Impuls.

Rigby, K., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Is school bullying really on the rise? Social

PT
Psychology of Education, 14, 441–455.

RI
Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of Bullying Behavior and Their Correlates.

SC
Aggressive Behavior, 20, 359-368.

Romera, E., Ortega, R., Del Rey, R., Casas, J. A., Viejo, C., Gómez, O., ... & Luque, R.
NU
(2017). Bullying, cyberbullying y dating violence. Estudio de la gestión de la

vida social en estudiantes de Primaria y Secundaria de Andalucía [Bullying,

MA

cyberbullying and dating violence. Study of the management of social life in

students of Primary and Secondary of Andalusia]. Colección Actualidad, 75.

ED

Salmivalli, C., (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Agression and Violent

Behavior, 15, 112-120.

T
EP

Smith, P. K. & Berkkun, F. (2017). How research on cyberbullying has developed. In

McGuckin, C., & Corcoran, L. (Eds.), Bullying and cyberbullying:

C

Prevalence, psychological impacts and intervention strategies. Hauppauge,

AC

NY: Nova Science

Smith, P. K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of

research. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 1–9.

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of

bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119-

1133.

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).

Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.

Swearer, S. M., Siebecker, A. B., Johnsen-Frerichs, L. A., & Wang, C. (2010).

PT
Assessment of bullying/victimization: The problem of comparability across

RI
studies and across methodologies. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer & D. L.

SC
Espelage (Eds.). Handbook of bullying in schools: An international

perspective. New York: Routledge.

NU
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding

concepts and applications. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological

MA

Association.

Tomczyk, L. (2017). Cyberbullying in 2010 and 2015—A perspective on the changes

ED

in the phenomenon among adolescents in Poland in the context of preventive

action. Children and Youth Services Review, 75, 50-60.

T
EP

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Losel, F., Crago, R. V., & Theodorakis, N. (2016).

School Bullying and Drug Use Later in Life: A Meta-Analytic Investigation.

C

School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 8-27.

AC

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Losel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011a). The predictive

efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: A systematic/meta-

analytic review of longitudinal studies. Criminal Behaviour and Mental

Health, 21, 80–89.

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Losel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011b). Do the victims of

school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and

Peace Research, 3, 63–73.

Twardowska-Staszek E., (2016). Zachowania ryzykowne młodzieży szkolnej z

niepełnosprawnością intelektualną: uwarunkowania podmiotowe i

środowiskowe [Risky behavior in school children with intellectual

disabilities: personal and environmental factors]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo

PT
WAM.

RI
Van Geel, M., Vedder, P., & Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer

SC
victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents A meta-

analysis. Jama Pediatrics, 168, 435-442.

NU
Zych, I., Beltrán-Catalán, M., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Llorent, V. J. (2018). Social and

Emotional Competencies in Adolescents Involved in Different Bullying and

MA

Cyberbullying Roles. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 23, 86-93.

Zych, I., Farrington, D., Llorent, V.J., & Ttofi, M.M. (2017). Protecting children
ED

against bullying and its consequences. New York: Springer.

Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Scientific research on bullying and
T
EP

cyberbullying: Where have we been and where are we going. Aggression and

Violent Behavior, 24, 188-198.

C

Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Llorent, V. J. (2017). Nature and dynamics of peer
AC

violence in Polish upper secondary schools. Social Psychology of Education,

20, 427-443.

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.

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA

Satorra-Bentler Chi-square = 796.23, df = 76, NFI = .94, NNFI = .93, CFI = .94,
RMSEA = .09
ED

Figure 1. Factor structure of The European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire

T
C EP
AC

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA

Satorra-Bentler chi-square = 981.92, df = 208, NFI = .98, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98,
ED

RMSEA = .06.
T

Figure 2. Factor structure of The European Cyberbullying Intervention Project

EP

Questionnaire
C
AC

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

100
90
80
70 66.8

60
Bullying
50
Cyberbullying
40 33
29.5 31
30
20 12.9 15.2

PT
10 6.5 5.2

0
Uninvolved Perpetrators Victims Bully/Victims

RI
SC
Figure 3. Percentages of participants involved in different bullying and cyberbullying
roles
NU
MA
T ED
C EP
AC

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
T ED
EP
C
AC

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Bullying victimization and perpetration behaviors reported by the participants

No 1-2 1-2 Weekly Daily
times a times a
year month
% % % % %
Victimization (I was… by a classmate/schoolmate)
Hit, kicked or pushed 36.6 31.7 13 6.9 11.7
Insulted 22 25.3 20.8 12.4 19.5
Said bad words to others about me 51.2 20.1 11.3 6.7 10.7
Threatened 74.5 13.7 5.5 2.9 3.4

PT
Things stolen or destroyed 73.9 16.5 4.5 1.6 3.5
Rejected or ignored 53.2 21.5 12.3 6.2 6.7
Spread rumors 51.7 27.2 10.3 5.3 5.5
Perpetration (I... a classmate/schoolmate)

RI
Hit, kicked or pushed 54.9 23.1 9.3 5.6 7.1
Insulted 41 29.1 11.7 7.6 10.5
Said bad words to others about somebody 65.5 13.7 9.1 4 7.8

SC
Threatened 85.1 6.5 3.2 2.9 2.3
Things stolen or destroyed 88.8 7.4 2.1 1.2 0.5
Rejected or ignored 57.7 25.7 7.8 4.7 4.1
Spread rumors 79.7 11.9 4.3 1.6 2.5
NU
MA
T ED
C EP
AC

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2. Cyberbullying victimization and perpetration behaviors reported by the

participants
No 1-2 1-2 Weekly Daily
times a times a
year month
% % % % %
I was.... by somebody on the Internet or mobile phone/
Somebody…. on the Internet or mobile phone
Insulted or said bad words 67.1 12.9 7.5 4.4 8.1
Written bad words about me to others 73.1 11.9 6.9 3.4 4.7
Threatened 83.1 8.6 5.6 0.1 2.5

PT
Hacked my account and stolen personal information 91.7 4 2 1.2 1.1
Hacked my account and pretended to be me 88.3 6.4 2.6 1.3 1.5
Created a false account and pretended to be me 91.5 3.9 1.9 0.6 2.2
Uploaded my personal information 89.3 5.7 2.6 1.3 1.1

RI
Uploaded my compromising pictures or videos 86.8 6.5 2.8 1.8 2.2
Edited with bad intentions pictures uploaded by me 90.7 4.5 2.3 1.6 0.9
Rejected or ignored 82.2 9.2 3.3 2.4 3

SC
I did... to somebody on the Internet or mobile phone
Insulted or said bad words 74.1 12.6 5.9 2 5.3
Written bad words about somebody to others 80.7 9.0 4.2 2.1 4
Threatened 93.3 2.2 2.3 0.6 1.7
NU
Hacked somebody´s account and stolen personal 94.8 2.5 1.8 0.5 0.5
information
Hacked somebody´s account and pretended to be them 94.7 2.6 1.6 0.7 0.5
Created a false account and pretended to be somebody 92.7 4.1 1.4 0.6 1.2
MA

Uploaded somebody´s personal information 95.3 1.6 1.9 0.6 0.7

Uploaded somebody´s compromising pictures or videos 90.2 4.6 3.4 0.4 1.3
Edited with bad intentions pictures uploaded by 93.9 3.1 1.4 0.5 1.1
somebody
Rejected or ignored 79.9 9.8 5.2 2.1 3
ED

Insulted or said bad words 92.5 3.8 1.7 1.1 0.9

T
C EP
AC

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3. Bullying and cyberbullying roles in Primary versus Middle School, and in girls
versus boys.

Primary Middle Girls Boys

school school
Bullying roles n % n % OR n % N % OR
(95% CI) (95% CI)
Uninvolved 175 30.6 132 28.1 188 32.9 118 25.5
Victims 225 39.3 98 20.9 .58 (.42- 214 37.5 105 22.7 .78 (.56-
.80) 1.09)
Perpetrators 21 3.7 47 10 2.97 (1.69- 30 5.3 37 8 1.97 (1.15-

PT
5.20) 3.35)
Bully/victims 151 26.4 193 41.1 1.70 (1.24- 139 24.3 203 43.8 2.33 (1.70-
2.31) 3.19)

RI
Cyberbullying
roles

SC
Uninvolved 439 80.4 240 51.1 383 69 291 64.2
Victims 54 9.9 76 16.2 2.57 (1.76- 74 13.3 54 11.9 .96 (.66-
3.78) 1.41)
Perpetrators 13 2.4 40 8.5 5.63 (2.95- 28 5 25 5.5 1.18 (.67-
NU
10.73) 2.06)
Cyberbully/victims 40 7.3 114 24.3 5.21 (3.52- 70 12.6 83 18.3 1.56 (1.10-
7.72) 2.22)
MA

Note: An association between the level of education (Primary versus Middle) and (cyber)bullying:

Bullying chi-square = 61.63, df = 3, V = .24, p < .01; cyberbullying chi-square = 106.27, df = 3, V = .32,

p < .01. An association between gender and (cyber)bullying: bullying Chi-square = 55.29, df = 3, V = .23,
ED

p < .01; cyberbullying chi-square = 6.7, df = 3, V = .08, p = .82. OR = odds rations, reference category=

uninvolved.
T
C EP
AC

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4. Prevalence of cyberbullying and bullying roles analyzed jointly

Uninvolved in Cybervictim Cyberperpetrator Cyberbully/victim
cyberbullying
Uninvolved in 27.1% 0.8% 0.4% 1.4%
bullying
Bullying 23.3% 4.8% 1.1% 1.4%
victim
Bullying 4.1% 0.2% 1.6% 0.8%
perpetrator
Bully/victim 12.3% 7% 2.2% 11.6%
Note: An association between bullying and cyberbullying roles Chi-square = 314.62, df = 9, V = .32, p <

PT
.01

RI
SC
NU
MA
T ED
C EP
AC

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

- Research on bullying and cyberbullying in Poland is in its early stages

- This study was conducted with over 1000 Polish children and adolescents

- Two European questionnaires to measure bullying and cyberbullying were

validated

- The prevalence rates of bullying and cyberbullying in Poland are relatively high

PT
- Anti-bullying interventions in Poland are urgently needed

RI
SC
NU
MA
T ED
C EP
AC

36