Predicting cyberbullying perpetration in emerging adults: A theoretical test of the Barlett Gentile Cyberbullying Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Barlett and Gentile Cyberbullying Model (BGCM) is a learning-based theory that posits the importance of positive cyberbullying attitudes predicting subsequent cyberbullying perpetration. Furthermore, the tenants of the BGCM state that cyberbullying attitude are likely to form when the online aggressor believes that the online environment allows individuals of all physical sizes to harm others and they are perceived as anonymous. Past work has tested parts of the BGCM; no study has used longitudinal methods to examine this model fully. The current study (N = 161) employed a three-wave longitudinal design to test the BGCM. Participants (age range: 18-24) completed measures of the belief that physical strength is irrelevant online and anonymity perceptions at Wave 1, cyberbullying attitudes at Wave 2, and cyberbullying perpetration at Wave 3. Results showed strong support for the BGCM: anonymity perceptions and the belief that physical attributes are irrelevant online at Wave 1 predicted Wave 2 cyberbullying attitudes, which predicted subsequent Wave 3 cyberbullying perpetration. These results support the BGCM and are the first to show empirical support for this model. Aggr. Behav. 43:147-154, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".