LGBTQ + Bullying and Cyberbullying Risk Profiles: Singular Victimization, Combined Perpetration
Introduction This study has examined profiles of adolescents involved in both online and offline general and LGBTQ + bullying (considering perpetration and victimization), as well as individual, micro and, macrosystem variables associated with these profiles. Methods The sample comprised 2482 adoles...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Sevilla (US) |
| Repositorio: | idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:idus.us.es:11441/176652 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/11441/176652 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-025-01141-4 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Bullying Cyberbullying Latent profiles Sex and gender diversity Adolescents |
| Sumario: | Introduction This study has examined profiles of adolescents involved in both online and offline general and LGBTQ + bullying (considering perpetration and victimization), as well as individual, micro and, macrosystem variables associated with these profiles. Methods The sample comprised 2482 adolescents aged between 12 and 18 years (M = 14.49; SD = 1.62). Data were collected during the 2021–2022 academic year. Results From the latent profile analyses, three bullying profiles were identified that were distinguished according to the level of severity of the bullying perpetration — absent, moderate, or severe — but not according to the type of perpetration: general and LGBTQ + types. In the case of victimization, four profiles were identified: a profile with hardly any victimization; a profile in which LGBTQ + victimization predominated, off and online; a profile in which general victimization predominated, off and online; and a profile in which all types of victimization persisted, general and LGBTQ + , off and online. The results of multinomial logistic regressions identified sex and gender diversity, age, family support, school belonging, and beliefs regarding diversity as relevant factors in belonging to the profiles. Conclusions Latent profile results suggested that no specific perpetrators only attack through one type of behavior (general or LGBTQ + phobic). However, there are specific victims depending on the received behaviors. Policy Implications The results may guide the development of future psychoeducational prevention programs aimed at reducing general and LGBTQ + forms of bullying and cyberbullying in adolescence. |
|---|