See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240306418

Cyberbullying Experience and Gender Differences Among Adolescents in

Different Educational Settings

Article  in  Journal of Learning Disabilities · June 2013

DOI: 10.1177/0022219413492855 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

61 2,744

2 authors:

Tali Heiman Dorit olenik shemesh

The Open University of Israel The Open University of Israel
73 PUBLICATIONS   2,176 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   814 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ABV4KIDS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tali Heiman on 14 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

492855
research-article2013
JLDXXX10.1177/0022219413492855Journal of Learning DisabilitiesHeiman and Olenik-Shemesh

Article
Journal of Learning Disabilities

Cyberbullying Experience and Gender

2015, Vol. 48(2) 146­–155
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013
Reprints and permissions:
Differences Among Adolescents in sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022219413492855

Different Educational Settings journaloflearningdisabilities.sagepub.com

Tali Heiman, PhD1 and Dorit Olenik-Shemesh, PhD1

Abstract
Cyberbullying refers to a negative activity aimed at deliberate and repeated harm through the use of a variety of electronic
media. This study examined the Internet behavior patterns and gender differences among students with learning disabilities
who attended general education and special education classes, their involvement in cyberbullying, and the relationships
among being cyberbullied, their responses, and their coping strategies. The sample consisted of 149 students with learning
disabilities (LD) attending general education classes, 116 students with comorbid LD attending special education classes, and
242 typically achieving students. All the students, studying in middle and high schools, completed a self-report cyberbullying
questionnaire. Findings indicate that although no significant differences emerged in the amount of surfing hours and students’
expertise in the use of the Internet, students attending special education classes are more likely to be cybervictims and
cyberperpetrators; girls are more likely to be cybervictims, whereas boys are more likely to be cyberperpetrators. These
results contribute to our understanding of students’ involvement in cyberbullying and can serve as a basis for developing
preventive programs as well as intervention programs for students and for educational school teams.

Keywords
cyberbullying, learning disabilities, general classes, special classes, gender

With advances in technology, students are finding new
methods of cyberbullying. But relatively little is known
about the experiences of cyberbullying of students with
learning disabilities (LD). The present study explored the
prevalence of cyberbullying while also examining gender
differences. Studies have found that the number of youth
who report making rude or nasty comments to someone
online has doubled from 14% to 28%, that more than 30% of
youth experience cyberbullying, and that up to 71% of ado-
lescents report either witnessing or personally experiencing
racial victimization on the Internet (Hinduja & Patchin,
2013; Tynes, Rose, & Williams, 2010). Cyberbullying has
also been found to be associated with multiple forms of psy-
chosocial harm and delinquency (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004).
time and creates an ongoing pattern of harassment and abuse
(Olweus, 1993). In addition, significant relationships have
been observed between bullying and lower scholastic achieve-
ments, social and emotional problems, risk of depression, and
low self-esteem (Kim & Leventhal, 2008).
For the past decade, computer and Internet facilities have
created new opportunities for children and adolescents with
and without LD, as it is an easier environment for requesting
academic help or for creating social connections as com-
pared to face-to-face relationships (Raskind, Margalit, &
Higgins, 2006). The Internet and, in particular, social net-
working have become an inseparable part of children’s daily
lives and provide a new form of social space in which chil-
dren and adolescents might be exposed to online bullying.

Literature Review Prevalence and Involvement in Cyberbullying

Bullying has been described as aggressive intentional behav-
ior within a situation of an imbalance of power against a vic-
tim who cannot easily defend himself or herself (Li, 2007;
Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). Bullying behavior
can be demonstrated in different ways, including direct behav-
iors, such as physical behavior (hitting, pushing, kicking, and
stealing) or indirect verbal behavior (such as calling names,
provoking, threatening, spreading insults, spreading rumors,
excluding or isolating socially), which occurs repeatedly over
Cyberbullying may be viewed as a new form of bullying that
involves the use of electronic devices and/or other forms of
information technology. Definitions of cyberbullying refer to
1
The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel
Corresponding Author:
Tali Heiman, Department of Education and Psychology, The Open
University of Israel, 108 Ravutski Street, Raanana 43107, Israel.
Email: talihe@openu.ac.il

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at The Open University Library on February 8, 2015

Heiman and Olenik-Shemesh 147
a negative activity aimed at deliberate and repeated harm
through the use of a variety of electronic media, such as
social networks, chat rooms, email, and cell phones, through
which threatening and offensive messages are sent and
received. This violent use of the Internet by a person or a
group of people is mostly carried out anonymously to harm
another person who cannot defend himself or himself, and in
contrast to other forms of bullying, cyberbullying reaches a
far wider audience at rapid speed, transcending boundaries of
time and physical and personal space (Kowalski, Limber, &
Agaston, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). Findings analyzing
youngsters’ usage patterns of social networks and their con-
sequences for children and adolescents (O’Keeffe & Clarke-
Pearson, 2011) indicate that, in recent years, the Internet has
become a daily tool for teenagers.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that cyberbullying
has become a worldwide phenomenon, with growing occur-
rence every year (Shariff & Hoff, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell,
2004). Findings indicated that around 25% of school pupils
are directly involved in cyberbullying (Vandebosch & Van
Cleemput, 2009). Most of the studies indicate that although
the cyberbullying phenomenon might begin in elementary
school and can continue to college, it occurs mostly during
early adolescence and adolescence (Tokunaga, 2010;
Williams & Guerra, 2007). A comprehensive study con-
ducted in the United States found that one in five young
online users was involved in cyberbullying in some way
(Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), more than 53% reported they
knew someone who had been victimized on the Internet (Li,
2006), and approximately 20% of the students reported expe-
riencing cyberbullying in their lifetimes (Cyberbullying
Research Center, 2010). A study conducted in Canada
revealed that more than 40% of the 2,186 students who par-
ticipated in the study reported an involvement in cyberbully-
ing (Mishna, Khoury-Kassabri, Gadalla, & Daciuk, 2012); in
Israel it was found that 13% of adolescents reported they had
sent a hurtful message, 45% had received hurtful messages
on instant message software, 16% in chat rooms, and 6% via
emails (Goldsmith, 2011; Lemish, Ribak, & Aloni, 2009). In
another study, 8% of the middle school students reported
cyberbullying incidents (Trablus, Heiman, & Olenik-
Shemesh, 2011), whereas in an additional study (Heiman,
Olenik-Shemesh, & Eden, 2011) conducted on about 1,000
students from various schools in Israel, the percentage of stu-
dents reporting cyberbullying rose to 11%.
Types of Cyberbullying: Perpetrators, Victims,
and Witnesses
Perpetrators.  The population actively or passively involved
in cyberbullying includes three types of participants: A per-
petrator or a cyberbully is a person who deliberately sends
verbal or visual messages to threaten, intimidate, hurt, or
humiliate another person. Several studies have pointed out
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at The Open University Library on February 8, 2015
that cyberbully children are prone to negative behavior also
in non-Internet settings, which includes physical aggres-
sion, vandalism, theft, and cigarette and alcohol consump-
tion (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), and are likely to have a low
level of peer social support and/or low school achievements
(Calvete, Orue, Estevez, Villardon, & Padilla, 2010; Li,
2007; Williams & Guerra, 2007).
Victims.  The victims are children or adolescents who receive
hurtful messages via the Internet, have their social network
account broken into, have rumors spread about them, and so
on. Studies examining the characteristics of cyberbullying
victims have suggested that they have low social status
within their age group, a low level of social integration, low
self-esteem, behavioral problems at school, and a problem-
atic relationship with their parents (Katzer, Fetchenhauer, &
Belschak, 2009). In addition, it was found that both victim-
ization and perpetration of cyberbullying are related to
greater computer proficiency, frequent Internet use, more
use of electronic communication tools, more Internet risk
behavior since online activity in social networks requires
creating a personal profile, and more revealing of personal
details or ways of making contact (Huang & Chou, 2010;
Katzer et al., 2009; Mesch, 2009; Vandebosch & Van Cle-
emput, 2009).
Witnesses. The witnesses are those who see the hurtful
messages sent to others on the net. Occasionally the wit-
nesses take an active part in cyberbullying, forwarding the
messages on to others or responding “behind the scenes.”
Usually, the witnesses are highly exposed to peer pressure,
are considerably affected by the perpetrators, want to be
valued by them, and belong to the stronger group (Druck &
Kaplowitz, 2005). Coloroso (2003) describes the witnesses
of cyberbullying as a supportive group that encourages and
empowers the cyberbullies. Their support for cyberbullies
may range from minimal to active and intensive support.
Cyberbullying and Disabilities
Various studies have examined online victimization among
adolescent students with special needs, suggesting that
these types of students perpetrate more and are more vic-
timized than their typical peers. It has been pointed out that
students with disabilities enrolled in self-contained classes
reported more perpetration as well as victimization than
those in inclusive settings (Carter & Spencer, 2006; Rose,
Monda-Amaya, & Espelange, 2011; Son, Parish, &
Peterson, 2012). Scholars have examined students with
intellectual disability (Christensen, Fraynt, Neece, & Baker,
2012; Didden et al., 2009; Estell et al., 2009), students with
learning difficulties (Kaukiainen et al., 2002), and students
with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and
Asperger syndrome (Kowalski & Fedina, 2011).
148 Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(2)
Most of these studies have pointed to the increased rates
of involvement in cyberbullying and victimization experi-
ences among children with mild or multiple disabilities
(including LD and emotional and behavioral disorders)
studying in special education settings compared to typically
achieving students (Estell et al., 2009; Farmer et al., 2012;
Son et al., 2012; Swearer, Wang, Maag, Siebecher, &
Frerichs, 2012). Other studies have specifically examined
the relationships among cyberbullying, victimization, and
students with LD (Kaukiainen et al., 2002). Within Mishna’s
(2003) review comparing cyberbullying involvement
among students with and without disabilities, it was found
that students with LD are at higher risk to be cyberbullying
and to be victims. In addition, several aspects were identi-
fied that could cause a negative impact on children with LD
who are victims, such as low social status, poor social rela-
tionships, lack of social support, adjustment problems, feel-
ings of rejection, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and
low self-esteem. Another study (Baumeister, Storch, &
Geffken, 2008) found that students with LD were more
aggressive than typically achieving students and reported a
higher level of peer bullying and victimization compared to
non-LD students. Students with LD and comorbid diagno-
ses, probably because of their severe social skills deficits,
academic difficulties, or attention difficulties reported on a
greater amount of peer victimization compared to students
without a comorbid diagnosis. Similar results (Kaukiainen
et al., 2002) revealed that children with LD scored high on
bullying and also tended to be victimized by others; thus, it
appears they are likely to have bully–victim behavior.
Students diagnosed with LD are considered to be at
higher risk for social and emotional difficulties, including a
greater sense of loneliness, poorer social skills, social
behavioral problems, rejection by peers or by their class-
mates, and/or lower self-esteem (e.g., Lackaye & Margalit,
2006), whereas adolescents diagnosed with multiple LD
(reading and math) as well as students diagnosed with a
single LD (reading or math) reported poorer functioning in
school adjustment, poorer social behavior, and more emo-
tional symptoms compared to typically achieving students
(Martinez & Semrud-Clikeman, 2004). Svetaz, Ireland, and
Blum (2000), whose study was based on data from the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, with a
sample of 20,780 adolescents and 1,301 students with a
learning disability, found that adolescents with LD had
twice the risk of emotional distress, whereas females had
twice the risk for violent involvement as cybervictims than
their peers.
Gender differences. Different studies examined the rela-
tionships between gender and aggressive behavior, point-
ing out that across countries, boys are more likely to
respond in an aggressive manner than are girls (e.g., Esther
& Izaskun, 2012; Lansford et al., 2012), but it appears that
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at The Open University Library on February 8, 2015
only a few studies have examined the relationships among
victimization or bullying, gender, and disabilities. Some
findings have not found gender differences for bullying
and victimization (Kaukiainen et al., 2002; Mishna et al.,
2012; Swearer et al., 2012). As to cyberbullying findings,
studies have found that boys are more likely to be bullies
than are girls (Huang & Chou, 2010; Li, 2006; Smith et al.,
2008) and that girls are more likely to be victims on the net.
In addition, girls with LD were more likely than boys with
LD to be victims (Mishna, 2003). Other studies have found
no significant differences between boys’ and girls’ involve-
ment in cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Katzer et
al., 2009), similarly for children with intellectual and
developmental disabilities (Didden et al., 2009). Until now,
no specific study has been conducted on gender differences
among students with LD and their involvement in
cyberbullying.
Educational placement. In Israel, children diagnosed with
LD are mostly included in general education classes, where
there is one general education teacher for each subject mat-
ter. The students with LD receive learning assistance during
or after school hours—an average of 2 to 5 hours per
week—according to the student’s needs. In such classes,
responsibility is shared by the mainstream teacher and the
special education teacher who work together to identify the
student’s needs and help him or her.
The alternative framework of educational placement for
students with LD with additional challenges is separate
classes within mainstream schools. These students have one
special education teacher, and most of the time they study
similar learning materials to the typically achieving stu-
dents, but teaching strategies are more strictly oriented
toward final exams (as in math, literature, language),
whereas most of the class activities (school events, out-of-
school activities) take place with the other classes on their
grade level.
Cyberbullying has become a growing concern for ado-
lescents, but little research has been carried out so far on
cyberbullying and students with LD attending main-
streamed and special classes, taking gender into consider-
ation. The goals of the present study were to examine the
surfing patterns of adolescents, with and without LD,
attending different educational settings (general classes and
special education classes) and to better understand their
involvement and response to cyberbullying, compared to
non-LD students and considering gender differences. We
can assume that students with LD will be more vulnerable
as well as more involved as victims and/or perpetrators in
cyberbullying. Specifically, students with LD attending
special education classes, because of their multiple behav-
ioral, social, or emotional difficulties, are expected to bully
and/or be bullied more than students attending general edu-
cation classes.
Heiman and Olenik-Shemesh 149

Table 1.  Participants’ Characteristics by Education Settings.

Students With LD, General Students With LD, Special Classes Typically Achieving Students
Education Classes (n = 149) (n = 116) (n = 242)

Variable n % n % n %
Grade
  7th grade 38 25.5 19 16.3 49 20.2
  8th grade 61 40.9 46 39.7 83 34.3
  9th grade 16 10.7 25 21.6 58 24.0
  10th grade 34 22.8 26 22.4 52 21.5
Gender
 Male 78 52.3 82 70.7 117 48.3
 Female 71 47.6 34 29.3 125 51.7

Based on the disabilities literature review, we expected
to find differences among the participants, mainly resulting
from the degree of their disability. The research questions
and hypotheses were the following:
1. What are the surfing patterns of students attending
different educational settings? It was expected that
typically achieving students would make use of the
Internet more extensively than the other students.
2. Are students with LD more involved as cyber-
victims/cyberperpetrators? It was expected that stu-
dents with LD would be more cybervulnerable than
typically achieving students.
3. Do students with LD react differently to cyberbully-
ing experiences than non-LD students? It was
assumed that students with LD would respond with
limited strategies compared to typically achieving
students.
4. What behavioral and emotional reactions are raised
to cyberbullying experiences as related to the differ-
ent student groups? We assumed that cybervictim-
ization experiences among students with LD might
evoke more behavioral and emotional concerns than
seen among typically achieving students.
5. Are there gender differences among the student
groups? We expected that boys would more often be
bullies than girls and that girls would be more vul-
nerable across the groups.
Method
Participants
The study included 507 students: 275 boys and 232 girls
attending three middle schools and two high schools (from
the 7th grade to 10th grade) in Israel. The age range was
from 12 to 17 years (M = 14.4, SD = 1.18). Of the entire
sample, 105 (20.71%) were in 7th grade, 190 (37.48%)
were in 8th grade, 99 (19.53%) were in 9th grade, and 113
(22.28%) were in 10th grade (see Table 1).
The sample consisted of three groups: 149 students with
LD attending general education classes, 116 students with
comorbid LD attending special education classes, and 242
typically achieving students, as a comparison group. No
significant age differences emerged between groups, F(2,
507) = 2.75, p = .65; significant differences emerged for
gender between groups, χ2(2, 507) = 22.82, p = .00, η = .23,
as within special education classes, there were fewer girls
and more boys compared to the other groups.
Students with LD.  The students with LD had been formally
diagnosed either by the psychological services agency or by
a private psychologist, prior to entering the school and/or
the class. The Israeli criteria for LD classification include
results from a battery of tests, such as achievement test
scores with a marked deficit in academic achievement for at
least 2 years below grade level and average or above-
|average intelligence. In addition, the definition of LD
incorporates exclusion criteria such as absence of neuro-
logical problems, sensory impairments, and absence of
problems presumed to be the result of environmental, eco-
nomic, or cultural factors. All participants with LD were
identified as having problems, such as difficulties with
reading, writing, and/or spelling in the first language
(Hebrew).
Students with LD in special education classes.  These students
were diagnosed with comorbid LD, especially with behav-
ior and/or emotional problems, conduct disorders, ADHD,
communication impairment, and/or language impairment.
After comprehensive educational and psychological tests,
they were advised to attend special education classes.
According to the Israeli Law of Special Education and the
Israeli regulations for privacy protection (Ministry of
Education, Culture and Sports, 1996), specific test scores were
not available to the research team. However, by definition, for
an LD diagnosis, the IQ score must be in the normal range.

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at The Open University Library on February 8, 2015

150 Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(2)
Procedure
After receiving approval from the Ministry of Education
Ethics Board and the local school principal, letters were
sent to parents via the class teachers explaining the goals of
the study. Parents could object to their child’s participation
by signing a letter. The students’ participation was volun-
tary, based on parental approval, and 95% of the parents
approved their child’s participation in the study. All the
questionnaires were distributed to the students in the schools
during class time for one hour under the supervision of one
of the researchers. Students completed the questionnaire
anonymously.
Measure
The Cyberbullying Self-Report Questionnaire (Smith et al.,
2008) includes 20 items regarding general information on
Internet usage (e.g., “How often do you use the Internet?”);
students’ experiences as victims (e.g., “Have you ever been
cyberbullied?”), perpetrators (e.g., “Have you ever taken
part in cyberbullying?”), and witnesses (e.g., “Do you know
of anyone who has been cyberbullied?”); strategies to use if
being exposed to cyberbullying (e.g., “What do you think
are the best ways to stop cyberbullying?”); and the emo-
tional aspects of being cyberbullying (e.g., “How do you
think someone who has been cyberbullied would feel?”). A
dichotomous response scale (yes/no) was created for stu-
dents who responded positively to one or more experience
(being a victim, a perpetrator, a witness) versus none. In
addition, demographic information was collected.
Results
Surfing Patterns
Examining the different usage patterns of surfing the net by
groups, including surfing in one’s room, in another room, or
at a friend’s house, revealed no significant differences
among the groups. The only significant differences were
found for the item “surfing for preparing homework,” as
students in special classes reported a lower rate than did the
other groups, χ2(2, 507) = 36.33, p < .001, η = .29, and stu-
dents in LD general education classes reported a higher ten-
dency toward downloading music from the net compared to
the other groups, χ2(2, 507) = 15.00, p < .01, η = .19.
The students from the different groups spent almost the
same number of hours on the Internet (range between 0.5
hour to 24 hours per day), with a mean of 3.6 per day (SD =
3.2), with no significant differences among the groups. In
addition, students were asked to estimate their expertise on
the net from low (1) to excellent (4). This measure had a
mean of 3.15 (SD = .73), with no significant differences
among the groups.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at The Open University Library on February 8, 2015
Cyberbullying Experiences
The students’ responses to their experiences of being a vic-
tim, a perpetrator, or a witness or knowing someone who was
hurt on the net were transformed into a dichotomous catego-
rization (yes/no). In all, 75 participants (14.9%) reported
being victimized at least one time in the previous year, 64
students (13%) reported being a perpetrator, 160 students
(33.8%) were witness to cyberbullying, 188 students (37.6%)
were familiar with others who were hurt because of cyberbul-
lying acts, and a lower percentage of the participants were
both victims and perpetrators (n = 22, 4.5%).
To further examine differences among the three groups
(LD in general classes, LD in special classes, typically
achieving students), chi-square analyses were conducted
with the five categories of cyberbullying. Results revealed
that students with LD in special education classes were
more often cybervictims than were students from the other
groups, χ2(2, 505) = 6.9, p < .05, η = .12, reported being
cyberperpetrators more often than the other students, χ2(2,
492) = 10.5, p < .05, η = .14, and were more often both
victim and perpetrator, χ2(2, 492) = 6.9, p < .05, η = .14. It
was found that for being a witness and knowing someone
who was hurt by the net, more typically achieving students
reported yes compared to the other groups, respectively,
χ2(2, 500) = 6.9, p < .05, η = .13; χ2(2, 475) = 6.3, p < .05,
η = .13.
Gender Differences
To further examine differences between participants’ gen-
ders, chi-square analyses were conducted with the different
types of cyberbullying. Results revealed significant differ-
ences, as 18.2% of boys versus 5.8% of girls responded
affirmatively to being cyberperpetrators, χ2(2, 494) = 18.29,
p < .001, η = .19. Regarding cybervictims, 62.8% of the
girls versus 50.5% of the boys reported themselves as vic-
tims, χ2(2, 494) = 3.13, p < .05, η = .08. No significant dif-
ferences were found for being a cyberwitness, 27.6% boys
versus 33.9% girls, χ2(2, 494) = 2.34, ns, nor for the ques-
tion of knowing someone who was a victim, 35.6% boys
versus 40.3% girls, χ2(2, 494) = 1.15, ns.
In addition, we examined the differences between girls
and boys separately by groups for each cyberbullying type
(a victim, a perpetrator, a witness, and knowing someone
who was cyberbullied). As presented in Table 2, chi-square
analyses revealed that girls with LD attending special
classes reported being victims on the net more often, χ2(2,
226) = 16.40, p < .001, η = .27, and were often perpetrators
on the net compared to the other groups, χ2(2, 226) = 5.93,
p < .05, η = .15. Among the boys, the only significant differ-
ence was found for the question “Do you know someone
who was hurt on the net?” Typically achieving students
reported a significantly lower rate than did students from
Heiman and Olenik-Shemesh 151

Table 2.  Involvement in Cyberbullying by Gender and by Student Groups.

Students With LD, General Students With LD, Special Classes Typically Achieving Students
Education Classes (n = 149) (n = 116) (n = 242)

Variable n % n % n %
Have you been a victim on the net?
 Boys 9 11.8 11 14.7 13 11.2
 Girls 9 15.5 11** 25.5 19 15.3
Have you been a perpetrator on the net?
 Boys 3 4.2 3 9.7 7 5.6
 Girls 15 16.9 21* 22.6 14 12.5
Have you been a witness to cyberbullying on the net?
 Boys 30 39.0 33 40.2 32 27.6
 Girls 15 21.1 8 25.8 42 33.9
Do you know someone who was hurt on the net?
 Boys 32 41.6 37 45.1 28** 24.1
 Girls 27 38.0 15 48.4 49 39.5
Being a victim and a perpetrator on the net
 Boys 4 5.26 6 7.32 6 5.66
 Girls 0 0.0 3 10.7* 3 2.42

*p < .05. **p < .001.

the other groups, χ2(2, 275) = 11.22, p < .001, η = .21.
Furthermore, we examined the distribution of the students
who reported being a victim as well as a perpetrator in each
one of the groups and among genders. Among all 273 male
participants, 16 boys (5.9%) reported on both experiences,
whereas among 226 female participants, only 6 (2.7%)
were both victims and bullies. Significant differences
emerged only for the groups of girls, as more girls in special
classes reported both being bullied and bullying others
compared to girls from the other groups, χ2(2, 226) = 7.88,
p < .05, η = .18.
Students’ Responses to Being Cyberbullied
To examine specific student responses of being cyberbul-
lied, an ANOVA was conducted on the students’ responses,
according to student groups and gender. As presented in
Table 3, significant results were found for groups, F(2, 287)
= 3.56, p < .05, η = .16. A post hoc Scheffe test revealed that
students with LD in special classes more often used cyber-
attack response as a strategy, fewer shared the cyberbully-
ing event with others, more reported laughing about being
cyberbullied, and fewer used “switched off the Internet” as
a strategy compared to the other groups. No significant dif-
ferences were found for gender, F(1, 287) = 0.82, ns.
Correlations
Pearson correlations were conducted to examine the rela-
tionships between each student’s educational settings—
being a cybervictim, student reports of scholastic grades,
attention span, and variation within social status—with the
following three questions: (a) Did your involvement in
cyberbullying change your scholastic grades? (b) Did your
involvement in cyberbullying change your social situation?
and (c) Did your involvement in cyberbullying change your
ability to concentrate when learning? Almost similar results
were found for the various student groups. A significant
positive correlation was found for cybervictims and social
status (non-LD, r = .17, p < .05; LD general class, r = .49, p
< .001; LD special class, r = .24, p < .05), for cybervictims
and students’ scholastic grades (for non-LD, r = .03, ns; LD
general class, r = .34, p < .001; LD special class, r = .14,
ns), and for cybervictims and students’ attention span (for
non-LD, r = .23, p < .01; LD general class, r = .31, p < .01;
LD special class, r = .50, p < .001).
Furthermore, the relationship between being a cyber-
victim and not being a cybervictim was examined by the
students’ self-reported scholastic achievements (lower,
higher, did not change), by the amount of the students’
attention span (lower, higher, did not change), and by
social status (having fewer or more friends, did not
change). The results of chi-square analyses revealed that
students with LD in general education who reported being
cybervictims reported lower scholastic achievement, χ2(2,
74) = 4.60, p < .05, and lower concentration, χ2(2, 74) =
5.8, p < .05, but no significant differences were reported
on changes in their social status. Students with LD in spe-
cial classes reported only lower concentration, χ2(2, 81) =
6.12, p < .05, but no significant differences were reported
for changes to their grades or their social status. No differ-
ences were found for typically achieving students, between

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at The Open University Library on February 8, 2015

152 Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(2)

Table 3.  Students’ Responses to Being Cyberbullied or Being a Cybervictim.

Students With LD, General Students With LD, Special Typically Achieving
Education Classes (n = 149) Classes (n = 116) Students (n = 242)

Variable n % n % n %
Ignored 40 26.8 29 25.0 82 33.9
Attack back 31 20.8 41 35.3* 59 24.4
Told a friend 29 19.5 19 16.4* 49 20.2
Laughed about it 27 18.1 28 24.1* 46 19.0
Stopped using the net 26 17.4 15 12.9* 58 24.0
Asked cyberbully to stop 23 15.4 18 15.5 51 21.1
Told parents 17 11.4 14 12.1 37 15.3
Told teacher 9 6.0 3 2.6* 17 7.0
Called police 6 4.0 3 2.6* 15 6.2
Documented the event 6 4.0 3 2.6* 9 3.7

*p < .05.

Table 4.  Specific Reaction to Being a Cyberbully or Cybervictim.

Students With LD, General Students With LD, Special Typically Achieving Students
Education Classes (n = 149) Classes (n = 116) (n = 242)

Variable n % n % n %
Angry 52 34.9 49 42.2 97 40.1
Anxious 44 29.5 22 19.0* 100 41.3
Sad 35 23.5 22 19.0* 64 26.4
Stressed 31 20.8 20 17.2* 66 27.3
Frustrated 29 19.5 19 16.4* 46 19.0
Sleep problems 23 15.4 14 12.1* 47 19.4
Loss of appetite 19 12.8 10 8.6 19 7.9
Problems with friends 27 18.1 15 12.9* 38 15.7
Unwilling to go to school 25 16.8 16 13.8* 51 21.1
Problems at home 24 16.1 13 11.2* 47 19.4
Learning problems 14 9.4 11 9.5 29 12.0

*p < .05.

being a cybervictim and not being a cybervictim for
grades, attention, or social status.
To examine the differences among the three groups
regarding specific reactions to cyberbullying, an ANOVA
was conducted on students’ responses, F(2, 287) = 5.48, p <
.05, η = .19. Post hoc tests revealed significant differences
between student groups, as students in special classes
reported lower percentages of emotional and behavioral
reactions, such as being less anxious, sad, or stressed, than
did students in general classes; fewer reported problems
with friends, at school, or at home (see Table 4). No signifi-
cant results were found for gender.
Discussion
The aims of the present study were to examine the behav-
ioral patterns of students with LD attending different
educational settings, to identify their involvement in and
experience with cyberbullying, and to examine if there were
gender differences in the various types of cyberbullying,
assuming that students diagnosed with comorbid LD prob-
lems in a special education setting might be more involved
in and vulnerable to cyberbullying compared to other stu-
dents. Previous research has shown that students with mild
disabilities were cyberbullies more often than the other
children (Estell et al., 2009). The results of the present study
are consistent with those of previous studies that show that
students with LD have greater involvement in cyberbully-
ing and cybervictim than do typically achieving students
(Mishna, 2003). As few studies have been conducted
regarding the cyberexperiences of students with LD attend-
ing special education classes, the main contribution of the
present study was to focus on students with different levels
of severity of LD and their cyberinvolvement and

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at The Open University Library on February 8, 2015

Heiman and Olenik-Shemesh 153
vulnerability. All students who participated in the study
considered themselves to have good to excellent expertise
on the Internet, and they reported using the Internet almost
the same number of hours per day, either for homework or
for pleasure and social communication. The higher percent-
age of all the study participants who are involved in cyber-
bullying and violence is a reason to be concerned in
particular with regard to students who are a priori at higher
risk for social and emotional vulnerability.
Our results indicated that students diagnosed with LD
attending special education classes were more often vic-
tims and perpetrators of cyberbullying. The findings also
showed that student involvement within the social net, as
victims or as perpetrators, may increase the risk of being
hurt, and being a cybervictim was correlated with lower
grades and lower concentration. Considering the severity
of students with comorbid LD, they might have a higher
predisposition to be vulnerable or at risk than the other
students. For example, it was found that students attending
special education classes respond in a more aggressive
way on the net and are less willing to share their experi-
ence with another person (a parent, a teacher, the police)
documenting the event compared to other groups. Thus,
we assume that these students’ responses are the result of
their mild disability temperament, as was found in previ-
ous studies, which estimated that more than 50% of the
children with LD and ADHD faced interpersonal difficul-
ties because of their tendency to respond in an aggressive
way, impatiently, or in a loud voice (Moon, Zentall,
Grskovic, Hall, & Stormont, 2001). These results are con-
sistent with those of a previous study (De Boo & Prins,
2007), indicating that children diagnosed with ADHD and
LD often encounter social problems in developing and/or
maintaining social interactions and interpreting social
codes and often behave and respond in an impulsive way,
tend to be aggressive, and tend to be overpowering toward
others.
As victims of cyberbullying, students in special classes
as well as students with LD in general classes confirm that
being involved in cyberbullying disturbs their attention and
concentration, and for students with LD in general classes,
it affects their academic achievement.
Regarding gender differences, similar to previous stud-
ies (e.g., Hinduja & Patchin, 2008, 2013; Katzer et al.,
2009), it was found that girls are more likely to be cyber-
victims than are boys and that girls in special education
classes are at higher risk for being cybervictims (25.5%)
than are girls in other education settings. In addition, more
girls in special education reported being perpetrators
(22.6%) than mainstream girls, and we assume that, in real-
ity, percentages for being victimized or bullied are much
higher. These results are consistent with previous findings
that girls are at higher risk of being cybervictims (Farrington,
Ttofi, & Losel, 2011).
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at The Open University Library on February 8, 2015
What might be the reasons that girls in special education
classes reported higher rates of involvement in cyberbully-
ing? Might this be because of their special characteristics as
having more serious behavioral and/or social-emotional
problems? Are they more vulnerable or just more willing to
admit their involvement in cyberbullying? Further and
more in-depth research is needed.
Limitations and Additional Research
The present study has some limitations: The different
comorbid disabilities were not separately dealt with, and the
study relied exclusively on student self-report. Further stud-
ies are needed to examine more specific disorders, includ-
ing a larger sample and a wider range of age groups, such as
younger children, to determine their experience as perpetra-
tors and/or victims, taking into consideration social and
emotional measures, such as social skills, competence,
social status, satisfaction with life, and so on.
Additional research should include students in various
educational settings, comparing different places (urban,
rural) and taking into consideration different aspects of risk
and protective aspects, such as students’ age, relationships
with parents, and social environment. In addition, studies
should be expanded to include the perspective of various
school staff, such as supervisors, principals, educational
counselors, psychologists, and educational coordinators, as
well as parents. It would be desirable to hold personal inter-
views regarding students’ experiences with cyberbullying.
Additional studies might consider using the concept of
mixed-methods research, including both quantitative and
qualitative methods (Harrits, 2011), to more deeply under-
stand the personal view as perceived by adolescents who
are involved in cyberbullying.
Implications
Given the increasing rate of accessibility to technology in
both schools and homes, these findings highlight the impor-
tance of addressing cyberbullying, with respect to both
research and intervention, as a unique phenomenon with
equally unique challenges for students, parents, and teach-
ers. The present study adds to the growing literature on the
contribution of the education system to the cyberbullying
phenomenon regarding students diagnosed with LD with
different levels of severity. These students are considered as
having social difficulties in the establishment of interper-
sonal relationships as well as to be more socially and emo-
tionally vulnerable than typically achieving students.
As it appears that cyberbullying has become a new ver-
sion of aggression that takes place in schools and at home,
our study has important implications for the development of
cyberbullying prevention programs. There is a need for the
educational team in the school to be aware of the possible
154 Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(2)
scholastic, social, and emotional impacts. Moreover, when
planning and conducting a constructive intervention pro-
gram for cybercoping, it is of great importance to adapt the
program to students who are in special education classes as
they are at higher risk of being bullied.
These specific programs for prevention and intervention
should be taught during class lessons, focus on strengthen-
ing students’ social skills to establish close and trustworthy
relationships to diminish the exposure to cyberbullying, and
enhance the children’s awareness of safe Internet behavior.
Moreover, the findings highlight the need to identify stu-
dents who are victimized, in particular children with LD, as
they are less likely to seek support or to share their cyberex-
perience. The results contribute to the LD field of cyberbul-
lying research, showing that LD students are much more
involved in cyberbullying, as victims, perpetrators, and wit-
nesses in cyberbullying. Given that students with a severe
comorbid LD diagnosis are at higher risk for victimization,
social programs and training for social behavior as well as
implementation of useful strategies for coping with cyber-
bullying are recommended.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Baumeister, A. L., Storch, E. A., & Geffken, G. R. (2008). Peer
victimization in children with learning disabilities. Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 25, 11–23.
Calvete, E., Orue, I., Estevez, A., Villardon, L., & Padilla, P.
(2010). Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggres-
sors’ profile. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1128–1135.
Carter, B., & Spencer, G. (2006). The fear factor: Bullying and
students with disabilities. International Journal of Special
Education, 21(1), 11–23.
Christensen, L., Fraynt, R., Neece, C., & Baker, B. (2012).
Bullying adolescents with intellectual disability. Journal of
Mental Health in Intellectual Disabilities, 5(1), 49–65.
Coloroso, B. (2003). The bully, the bullied, and the bystander.
New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Cyberbullying Research Center. (2010). Research. Retrieved from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=gma
il&rls=gm&hl=iw&q=cache:_x2D35DhB_4J: http://www.
cyberbullying.us/research.php+cyberbullying+in+USA+perc
entage&ct=clnk
De Boo, G. M., & Prins, P. J. (2007). Social incompetence in
children with ADHD: Possible moderators and mediators in
social-skills training. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 78–97.
Didden, R., Scholte, R., Korzilius, H., Moor, J., Vermeulen, A.,
O’Reilly, M., & Lancioni, G. (2009). Cyberbullying among
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at The Open University Library on February 8, 2015
students with intellectual and developmental disability in spe-
cial education settings. Developmental Neurorehabilitation,
12, 146–151.
Druck, K., & Kaplowitz, M. (2005). Setting up a no-bully zone.
Virginia Journal of Education, 98, 11–13.
Estell, D., Farmer, T., Irvin, M., Crowther, A., Akos, P., & Boudah,
D. (2009). Students with exceptionalities and the peer group
context of bullying and victimization in late elementary
school. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(2), 136–150.
Esther, C., & Izaskun, O. (2012). The role of emotion regulation
in the predictive association between social information pro-
cessing and aggressive behavior in adolescents. International
Journal of behavioral Development, 36(5), 338–347.
Farmer, T. W., Petrin, R., Brooks, D. S., Hamm, J. V., Lambert,
K., & Gravelle, M. (2012). Bulling involvement and school
adjustment of rural students with and without disabilities.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20(1),
19–37.
Farrington, D., Ttofi, M., & Losel, F. (2011). Editorial: School
bullying and later offending. Criminal Behavior and Mental
Health, 21, 77–79.
Goldsmith, R. (2011). Alimut virtualit bekerev bnei-noar [Virtual
bullying among youth]. Manuscript presented to the Israeli
Knesset, Jerusalem, Israel. Retrieved from www.knesset.gov.
il/committees/heb/material/data/mada2011-01-24.doc
Harrits, G. S. (2011). More than method? A discussion of para-
digm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 150–166.
Heiman, T., Olenik-Shemesh, D., & Eden, S. (2011, January).
Alimut virtualit: Darkey hitmodedut shel morim im biryonut
talmidim ba reshet [Virtual violence: Examining teachers’
ways of coping with pupils cyber bulling]. Presented at the
Opening Gates in Teacher Education: Education and Teacher
Education in the Age of Globalization conference, Tel Aviv,
Israel.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An explor-
atory analysis of factors related to offending and victimiza-
tion. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129–156.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2013). Social influences on cyber-
bullying behaviors among middle and high school students.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 711–722.
Huang, Y., & Chou, C. (2010). An analysis of multiple factors of
cyberbullying among junior high school students in Taiwan.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1581–1590.
Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009).
Cyberbullying: Who are the victims? A comparison of vic-
timization in Internet chatrooms and victimization in school.
Journal of Media Psychology, 21, 25–36.
Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Tamminen, M.,
Vauras, M., Maki, H., & Poskiparta, E. (2002). Learning dif-
ficulties, social intelligence, and self-concept: Connections to
bully–victim problems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
43(3), 269–278.
Kim, Y.-S., & Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide: A
review. International Journal of Adolescent Mental Health,
20, 133–154.
Kowalski, R., & Fedina, C. (2011). Cyber bullying in ADHD
and Asperger syndrome populations. Research in Autism
Spectrum Disorders, 5, 1201–1208.
 Heiman and Olenik-Shemesh 155
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agaston, P. W. (2008). Cyber
bullying: Bullying in the digital age. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lackaye, T. D., & Margalit, M. (2006). Comparisons of achieve-
ment, effort, and self-perceptions among students with learn-
ing disabilities and their peers from different achievement
groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 432–446.
Lansford, J. E., Skinner, A. T., Sorbring, E., Giunta, L. D., Deater-
Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (2012). Boys’ and girls’ rela-
tional and physical aggression in nine countries. Aggressive
Behavior, 38(4), 298–308.
Lemish, D., Ribak, R., & Aloni, R. (2009). Yeladim Israelim gol-
shim ba'internet: Mi panica musarit le horut ahrait [Israeli
children go online: From moral panic to responsible parent-
ing]. Megamot, 46(1–2), 137–163.
Li, Q. (2006). Cyber-bullying in schools: A research of gender dif-
ferences. School Psychology International, 27(2), 157–170.
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbul-
lying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4),
1777–1791.
Martinez, R. S., & Semrud-Clikeman, M. (2004). Emotional
adjustment and school functioning of young adolescents
with multiple versus single learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 37(5), 411–420.
Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and
cyber bullying. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 387–393.
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports. (1996). General direc-
tives: Special directive IV. Jerusalem, Israel: Author.
Mishna, F. (2003). Learning disabilities and bullying: Double
jeopardy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 336–347.
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J.
(2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying:
Victims, bullied and bully-victims. Children and Youth
Review, 34, 63–70.
Moon, S. M., Zentall, S. S., Grskovic, J. A., Hall, A., & Stormont,
M. (2001). Emotional, social, and family characteristics of
boys with AD/HD and giftedness: A comparative case study.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 207–247.
O’Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of
social media on children, adolescents and families. Pediatrics,
127(1), 800–804.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what
we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Raskind, M., Margalit, M., & Higgins, E. (2006). My LD:
Children’s voice in the Internet. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 29, 253–268.
Rose, C. A., Monda-Amaya, L., & Espelange, D. L. (2011).
Bullying perpetration and victimization in special education:
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at The Open University Library on February 8, 2015
View publication stats
A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education,
32(2), 114–130.
Shariff, S., & Hoff, D. L. (2007). Cyber bullying: Clarifying legal
boundaries for school supervision in cyberspace. International
Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1, 76–118. Retrieved from
http://ccrimejournal.brinkster.net/Shaheen&Hoffijcc.htm
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main
type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49,
147–154.
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.
Son, E., Parish, S. L., & Peterson, N. A. (2012). National preva-
lence of peer victimization among young children with dis-
abilities in the United States. Children & Youth Services
Review, 34(8), 1540–1545.
Svetaz, M. V., Ireland, M., & Blum, R. (2000). Adolescents
with learning disabilities: Risk and protective factors associ-
ated with emotional well-being: Findings from the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 27, 340–348.
Swearer, S. M., Wang, C., Maag, J. W., Siebecher, A. B., &
Frerichs, L. J. (2012). Understanding the bullying dynamic
among students in special and general education. Journal of
School Psychology, 50(4), 503–520.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A criti-
cal review and synthesis of research. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26, 277–287.
Trablus, T., Heiman, T., & Olenik-Shemesh, D. (May, 2011).
Cyber bullying and face to face bullying among adolescents
in Israel. Presented at the 6th COST Action on Cyberbullying
Conference, Turku, Finland.
Tynes, B., Rose, A., & Williams, D. (2010). The development and
validation of the online victimization scale for adolescents.
Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on
Cyberspace, 4(2). Retrieved from http://cyberpsychology.eu/
view.php?cisloclanku=2010112901&article=2
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying
among youngsters: Profiles of bullies and victims. New Media
& Society, 11, 1349–1371.
Williams, K., & Guerra, N. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of
Internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 14–21.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor, targets,
aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth
characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
45, 1308–1316.