Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

With the growing use of information technology, individuals are now able to hurt others, often with little recourse due to the anonymity provided in these online spaces. Cyberviolence (CV) can cause significant psychological and even physical harm as it has the potential to spill into the offline realm. Prevention programs have been implemented to address CV among youths, though additional evidence is necessary to inform initiatives that could be implemented to prevent various forms of CV. A scoping review was thus carried out to identify and map studies on issues related to the prevention of CV among youths. The review followed PRISMA reporting guidelines, and nine electronic databases were searched. In total, 114 empirical manuscripts (119 individual studies) were identified that met the inclusion criteria of addressing a CV prevention program. Studies were most commonly quantitative (n = 86), using randomized controlled trials (n = 35) or quasi-experimental designs (n = 24), though qualitative (n = 23) and mixed-methods (n = 10) designs were also used. Findings revealed that intervention programs mainly targeted cyberbullying (n = 100), followed by cyber dating abuse (n = 4) and cyberaggression (n = 5). Other forms of CV appeared in fewer than three studies. Most frequently, interventions took an educative approach (n = 62), and program components were typically activities (n = 27) or lessons (n = 20). Most commonly, program objectives targeted outcomes (n = 44) or processes (n = 31), with some targeting both (n = 15). Results from our review reveal that several programs utilized strong methodological designs, offering the potential for new systematic reviews to be conducted to document the effectiveness of several types of programs targeting CV.

Keywords

cyberviolence youth intervention programs prevention scoping review

Introduction

The World Health Organization (2024, no page) defines interpersonal violence as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.”¹ The concepts of threats and psychological traumas are particularly important nowadays with the growing popularity of platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok. The lenient legislation, the anonymous nature of social media, and the rapid distribution of information offer several opportunities for harmful situations (Elsaesser et al., 2021). According to Mukred et al. (2024), the prevalence of cyberviolence (CV) has surpassed traditional forms of offline violence. Cyberbullying is probably the most frequent form of CV investigated in scientific literature (Backe et al., 2018). About 10% to 40% of adolescents have been exposed to cyberbullying in their lifetime (Kowalski et al., 2014, 2016; Patchin & Hinduja, 2012; Tokunaga, 2010). Exposure to CV has been associated with negative psychological, social, and reproductive health outcomes, and these negative consequences are especially observed among girls and gender minorities (Backe et al., 2018).

Systematic reviews (SR) have recently identified the best programs against interpersonal violence. However, such SRs usually focused on offline violence or were specific to cyberbullying even though several forms of CV exist. Furthermore, SRs have not incorporated data on processes. Several scholars argue that SRs should incorporate qualitative findings to identify best practices in intervention implementation (Blais et al., 2022; Weisburd et al., 2017). The present article reports on findings from a scoping review (ScR) that could be useful for future SRs. This article reports findings related to approaches used to prevent cyber violence, study designs, program components, barriers, and outcomes. ScRs are often seen as a preliminary step to SRs as they offer an overview of the available evidence.

Different Forms of Cyberviolence

In comparison to offline violence, CV involves the use of technology to carry out more traditional forms of violence, such as utilizing social media to harass or coordinate acts of physical violence toward individuals or groups (Mukred et al., 2024). The term CV surfaced in the early 2000s, in parallel with the widespread acquisition of portable laptops and the diffusion of Web 2.0. Several terms are used to depict CV, such as cyber abuse, cyber aggression, digital abuse, and technology-related violence (Backe et al., 2018). These terms are not, however, necessarily interchangeable, showing the lack of consensus regarding a universal definition of CV.

The most common type of CV included in SRs is cyberbullying (see Chen et al., 2023; Ng et al., 2022, for examples). Cyberbullying consists of “any behavior performed through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicate hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort on others” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 278). While this form of CV has been more thoroughly studied, SR should also consider prevention programs aimed at other forms of CV. For instance, 75% of 18- to 25-year-old students surveyed from a large Midwestern university had experienced cyberdating violence by a romantic partner or former partner (Marganski & Melander, 2018). CV can be used in the context of domestic violence to coerce victims into staying in abusive relationships (McLachlan & Harris, 2022). Other forms of CV include online sexual exploitation, which consists of “the creation, distribution, or threat of distribution, of intimate or sexually explicit images of another person without their consent (also known as revenge pornography)” (Henry & Powell, 2016, p. 201), and sexting coercion, which is described as “engaging in unwanted sexual behavior via sexually explicit text, pictures, or video” (Henry & Powell, 2016, p. 201). The growing presence of street gangs on social media has led to a new phenomenon of violence online called cyberbanging, which has three main purposes: (a) promote gang affiliation or communicate about gang activities; (b) gain notoriety by expressing participation in violent acts or communicating an imminent threat; and (c) share information about rival gangs (Patton et al., 2013).

The Need to Identify the Best Practices Against Various Forms of Cyberviolence

The high rates of CV reported in numerous studies (Marganski & Melander, 2018; Tokunaga, 2010) call for the implementation of effective prevention programs. With few exceptions, SRs have mainly focused on cyberbullying, which is a very specific form of CV (Chen et al., 2023; Ng et al., 2022; Nocentini et al., 2015; Wang & Jiang, 2023). Blaya (2019) conducted a SR on cyberhate speech, which led to the identifications of three intervention areas, namely law, technology, and education; they did not find any rigorously assessed interventions. In their SR, Galende et al. (2020) summarized the effects of universal prevention programs against cyber dating violence. From 163 records, only 4 studies were included in their SR. While all evaluation studies reported decreases in violent or aggressive behaviors among program participants, additional studies are needed to support their conclusions. Furthermore, SRs have not incorporated findings about implementation issues or other processes that could be associated with effective prevention programs. The growing popularity of SRs in the past 20 years led to the recognition that prevention programs should be based on the best scientific evidence. By combining effects found in several evaluation studies, SRs increase our ability to generalize findings in comparison to single evaluation studies (Welsh & Farrington, 2001). Before conducting a SR, one must make sure that enough evaluation studies for one type of program are available. ScRs permit to determine whether sufficient evaluations are available to conduct a SR (Munn et al., 2018), and whether studies address issues related to implementation.

ScRs are one strategy available to summarize scientific evidence (Pham et al., 2014). While there is no universally accepted definition for a ScR (Peterson & Densley, 2017), a six-step framework is usually used : (a) identifying the research question, (b) identifying relevant studies, (c) study selection, (d) charting the data, (e) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results, and (f) an optional consultation exercise (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). A ScR maps the body of literature on a specific topic, often exploratory in nature, using sufficient studies to answer certain questions (Pham et al., 2014). ScRs explore the extent and range of a subject and identify research gaps in prior studies. They are particularly useful when a topic has not been extensively studied or is complex in nature (Pham et al., 2014). ScRs can also serve as a preliminary step to determine the value and potential cost of pursuing a full SR, as they share several characteristics regarding meticulous methods for identifying and evaluating relevant information in the existing literature related to a research question (Munn et al., 2018).

Problem Statement

Despite the numerous forms of CV, previous SRs have mostly focused on cyberbullying (Chen et al., 2023; Ng et al., 2022; Nocentini et al., 2015; Wang & Jiang, 2023). Two SRs have respectively focused on cyberdating violence (Galende et al., 2020) and hate speech (Blaya, 2019). Galende et al. (2020) have, however, only included universal prevention programs while Blaya (2019) failed at identifying soundly evaluated interventions. Previous SRs have not considered qualitative findings or data on processes that could complement evidence about the impact of a program.

This article reports the findings of a ScR that identified themes related to the prevention of CV. Our ScR addressed the following questions: (a) what forms of CV are targeted by prevention programs offered to youths? (b) what methodologies are used to address issues related to the prevention of CV? (c) what are the program components, objectives, and preventive approaches being used? and (d) what outcomes are used in evaluation studies?

Methodology

This ScR focused on prevention programs targeting at least one form of CV and specifically delivered to youths. Crime prevention programs were limited to any non-coercive strategy (programs had to operate outside the criminal justice system) and were defined as a set of coordinated measures or services used to reduce CV or associated risk factors. Programs targeting individual, relational, situational, or community risk factors were considered. Primary, secondary, and tertiary programs were included. The PRISMA guidelines were followed throughout each phase of the ScR (Moher et al., 2009; Peterson & Densley, 2017).

Search Strategy

Prior to the formal search of databases, a preliminary search was conducted on January 19, 2024, to identify literature reviews on EBSCO related to the prevention of CV. This search resulted in 35 articles (SRs, literature reviews, and ScRs) on violence (not specific to cyber) that were screened to identify relevant primary sources. When other reviews were found, they were added to the list of reviews to be screened.

Following this preliminary search, two reviewers searched nine electronic databases between January 2024 and February 2024: (a) Web of Science, (b) PsychInfo, (c) ERIC, (d) EBSCO, (e) ProQuest: Sociology Database, (f) ProQuest: Sociology Collection, (g) ProQuest: Sociological Abstracts, and (h) ProQuest: NCJRS Abstracts and Databases. The search included a list of 44 terms related to CV, 14 terms related to prevention, and 11 terms related to youth (the list is available on request).^2,3

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To be eligible, studies had to meet specific criteria. First, studies had to report qualitative, quantitative (or mixed method) results related to the prevention of CV (e.g., evaluation of a program, perceptions or experiences about a program). All types of CV as well as all outcomes of program evaluations were eligible. Second, the ScR focused on scientific literature. Documents had to be published in scientific journals, books, or book chapters. Third, publications had to be written in either English or French (languages of the authors) and been published between 1997 and 2024. The year 1997 marks the arrival of social media (Boyd & Ellison, 2007), a landmark event in the role of initiation and relationship formation among adolescents (McGeeney & Hanson, 2017). Fourth, the target group of the programs had to be adolescents or young adults (12–29 years old). Hango (2023) found that individuals between 12 and 29 years old displayed the highest risk of CV, indicating a priority for prevention efforts. Articles were excluded if they did not: (a) focus on CV, (b) report empirical findings related to the prevention of CV, (c) publish their findings in English or French, or (d) target the 12 to 29-year-old age range.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Two research assistants⁴ first screened the titles and abstracts of each article independently to distinguish between articles that should be excluded and those that should be moved to full article screening. Studies moved to full-text screening were then read in their entirety by the same two research assistants, and those that met the inclusion criteria were moved into extraction. Both research assistants needed to reach consensus on each publication prior to moving them forward toward extraction. Divergent decisions between the two research assistants were discussed with the principal investigator (PI) to resolve the conflict.

Once screening was completed, a preliminary grid was created. Four research assistants and the PI applied the grid to the same four articles (Baraldsnes, 2015; Bickmam et al., 2021; Biernesser et al., 2023; Calvete et al., 2021). Grids were compared to ensure that all fields were understood in the same way. Conflicts were discussed and resolved, and adjustments to the grid were iteratively made to account for varied study components. Finally, three research assistants extracted the data from the 114 studies with a final grid consisting of 20 codes.⁵

Strategy for Summarizing and Reporting the Data

The analytical strategy involved a mix of descriptive and qualitative thematic analyses. Frequency counts were conducted on the general information of the studies (e.g., countries, year of publication, types of CV). Studies were also grouped based on their methodologies (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed). Specific elements from these grouped studies were then analyzed in NVivo⁶ using both inductive and deductive thematic approaches. For instance, evaluation studies were analyzed inductively to identify themes related to program objectives, components, and the type of approach. Additionally, program outcomes of quantitative or mixed method studies were classified in categories related to (e.g., attitudes, behaviors, skills) as well as on the direction of the relationship between the program and the outcome.

Results

The results are presented in four sections. The first section reports the PRISMA flowchart. The second section presents study characteristics and methodologies. The third section focuses on preventive approaches used in programs, their objectives, and components. The fourth section classifies study outcomes based on program components.

Study Selection Process

Following the removal of duplicates, 2,228 references were screened (Figure 1). Of the 208 full-text publications reviewed, 114 were included in the ScR (2 dissertations, 1 book chapter, 111 articles). Five of these 114 texts contained 2 independent studies. For these 5 articles, data extraction was completed in separate grids, leading to 119 extractions in total.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart: selection process of studies.

Study Characteristics and Methodologies

The studies were conducted in 30 different countries, and the reported results from studies conducted in Spain (22%) and the United States (18%). About 15% of the studies were published between 2010 and 2014, 50% between 2015 and 2019, and 34% between 2020 and 2024. All studies were published in English language. Sample sizes ranged from 8 to 18,412 participants, with 22% of studies including <100 participants, 38% of studies including 100 to 499 participants, 18% of studies including 500 to 999 participants, and 23% of studies including over 1000 participants. Most studies used individuals as the unit of analysis (92%). Other studies either used classes (5%), individuals nested in classes or schools (3%), or the whole school (1%).

Ten different forms of CV were identified (Table 1). Five studies (4%) included multiple forms of CV. For instance, one program targeted cyberbullying, online grooming, sexting, and online dating violence (Calvete et al., 2023). Cyberbullying was the most frequent issue addressed (84%), followed by cyberaggression (4% of studies). The remaining types of CV were targeted in 3% or less of the studies.

Table 1.

Distribution of Studies by Type of Cyber Violence Targeted.

Type of Cyber Violence	Number of Studies (%)
Cyberbullying	100 (84)
Cyber dating abuse or violence	4 (3)
Cyber victimization	2 (2)
Cyberbullying and cyber victimization	1 (1)
Cyberbullying and online grooming	2 (2)
Cyberbullying, online grooming, sexting, online dating violence	1 (1)
Cyberbullying and cyber risk	1 (1)
Cyberstalking	1 (1)
Electronic harassment	1 (1)
Online provocation	1 (1)
Cyber aggression	5 (4)
Total	119 (100)

Note. Due to rounding, some of the percentages provided in the tables may not add up to 100.

Table 2 presents the three methodological approaches used in the 119 studies. Most studies used quantitative methods (72%), and qualitative methodologies (19%). Table 2 also displays analytical designs. Most quantitative studies (n = 86) evaluated a program with an experimental design (n = 35). Quasi-experimental designs—measures of CV or risk factors taken before and after the program for the treatment and the control groups—were used by 24 studies. Other studies based their evaluations on a before-and-after design with no control group (n = 15) or a cross-sectional (n = 10) design (i.e., correlation between a program and CV at a single point in time with no control group).

Table 2.

Methodologies and Designs Used in Eligible Studies.

Type of Methodology	Number of Studies (%)
Mixed	11 (8)
Cross-sectional (surveys)	4
Before-and-after	3
Quasi-experimental	2
Randomized controlled trial	1
Content analysis	5
Thematic analysis	2
Descriptive analysis	1
Framework matrix analysis	2
Qualitative	23 (19)
Thematic analysis	18
Coding, reduction of meaning	1
Coding based on interpretive paradigm	1
Thematic analysis, triangulation	1
Domain coding	1
Content and documentation analysis	1
Quantitative	86 (72)
Cross-sectional	10
Before-and-after	15
Quasi-experimental	24
Randomized controlled trial	35
Total	119 (100)

Note. Due to rounding, percentages may not add up to 100. For mixed methods, study designs were specified according to the number of studies that used a specific quantitative or qualitative design. The 11 mixed-method studies combined a total of 22 designs.

Table 2 also shows that most qualitative studies relied on thematic analyses (n = 18), while three of the studies used some form of coding technique (n = 3) and one used a content and documentation analysis (n = 1). Finally, Table 2 indicates that some studies relied on mixed methods (n = 11). Qualitative data were often combined with quantitative analyses based on data collected through cross-sectional (n = 4) or before-and-after designs (n = 3). The content analysis (n = 5) was the most common qualitative design used in mixed-method studies.

Components and Objectives Found in Prevention Programs

Objectives and program components were documented in 90 studies. Most studies (n = 83) were conducted on primary prevention programs. The other studies (n = 7) targeted secondary or tertiary prevention programs (not shown in Table 3). According to Table 3, activities were used in 30% of all programs. These activities included, among other things, writing reflections about a scenario (e.g., Calvete et al., 2023; Fernández González et al., 2020), participating in discussion groups, or engaging in role playing (e.g., Garaigordobil & Martinez-Valderrey, 2015a, 2015b). Lessons were found in 22% of the programs, including presentations on topics given by experts or teachers (e.g., Athanasiades et al., 2015). Information technology that relied on web games, apps, texting, or combo with other lessons was found in 15% of programs, with some using an online game designed for the program or text messages sent to participants (e.g., DeSmet et al., 2018).

Table 3.

Frequency of Program Components Based on Thematic Analysis.

Program Components	Number of Studies (%)
Activities (e.g., group discussions, role play)	27 (30)
Leisure activities (arts, music, performance, physical activity)	3 (3)
Lessons	20 (22)
Lessons and activities	14 (16)
Peer tutorials and activities	7 (8)
Restorative justice	3 (3)
Information technologies (e.g., webgame, app, texting, or combo with other lessons)	13 (15)
Not specified	3 (3)
Total	90 (100)

An inductive qualitative thematic analysis led to the identification of program objectives that were addressed in the 90 studies (Table 4), which were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: (a) those focusing on processes; (b) those focusing on outcomes; and (c) those incorporating processes and outcomes. Most studies (49%) only considered outcomes or themes related to CV. Accordingly, 35% of all studies either assessed the effect or addressed themes related to the prevention of cyberbullying. Another 34% of all studies focused on themes or outcomes related to processes such as knowledge related to risks and consequences of internet conduct (13%) or improving attitudes and empathy while addressing risk factors (11%). Eight studies (9%) addressed the capability of prevention programs to increase bystander interventions. Finally, only 16% of studies focused on the effects of programs on outcomes related to the process and CV.

Table 4.

Frequency of Program Objectives Based on Thematic Analysis.

Program Objectives	Number of Studies (%)
Program objectives target processes	31 (34)
Increase bystander interventions against cyberbullying	8 (9)
Increase bystander interventions against cyberbullying and knowledge on risks and consequences of internet conduct	1 (1)
Increase knowledge on risks and consequences of internet conduct	12 (13)
Work on individual attitudes, empathy, or risk factors	10 (11)
Program objectives target outcomes	44 (49)
Reduce cyberbullying	31 (35)
Reduce cyber dating abuse	3 (3)
Reduce cyber dating abuse; reduce cyberbullying; reduce sexting or online grooming	1 (1)
Reduce cyber perpetration or victimization	8 (9)
Reduce cyber perpetration or victimization; reduce cyberbullying	1 (1)
Program objectives target processes and outcomes	15 (16)
Increase bystander intervention against cyberbullying and prevent cyber perpetration or victimization	2 (2)
Help individuals deal with or avoid cyberbullying	5 (6)
Increase knowledge on risks and consequences of internet conduct; Reduce cyberbullying	3 (3)
Reduce cyber dating abuse; work on individual attitudes, empathy, or risk factors	1 (1)
Reduce cyberbullying; work on individual attitudes, empathy, or risk factors	3 (3)
Not specified	1 (1)
Total	90 (100)

Intervention Outcomes

Among the 96 studies based on a mixed method or a quantitative methodology, a total of 84 studies evaluated a program. Table 5 reports outcomes that were assessed in evaluation studies. As there were several different outcomes among the studies, a thematic analysis was employed to code outcomes into specific categories. Hence, categories were created based on the type of outcomes reported in the evaluation studies (e.g., attitudes, skills, or behavior) and on the direction of the relationship (e.g., improvements, no change, mixed, or unclear). A new category was created when a study reported more than one outcome. Table 5 shows that 56% (n = 47) of all studies reported improvements (i.e., decreases) in behaviors related to CV. These studies only evaluated the effect of their program on one category of outcomes. Positive changes in attitudes were reported in six studies. Six studies did not observe change in participants’ behaviors, and six other studies presented unclear or mixed results.

Table 5.

Program Outcomes and Components.

Outcomes	Activities	Leisure Activities	Lessons	Lessons + Activities	Not Specified	Peer Tutorials + Activities	Restorative Justice	Information Technology+	Number of Studies (%)
Improvements in attitudes	1	0	2	1	0	0	0	2	6 (7)
Improvements in attitudes; improvements in behavior	2	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	4 (5)
Improvements in attitudes; no changes in behavior	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1 (1)
Improvements in behavior	13	2	8	11	1	6	2	4	47 (56)
Improvements in knowledge; improvements in attitudes; improvements in behavior	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	2 (2)
Improvements in knowledge; improvements in behavior	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	2	4 (5)
Improvements in knowledge; improvements in skills	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (1)
Improvements in knowledge; improvements in skills; improvements in attitudes	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1 (1)
Improvements in skills; improvements in attitudes	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1 (1)
Improvements in skills; improvements in behavior	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	4 (5)
No changes in attitudes	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2 (2)
No changes in attitudes; improvements in behavior	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (1)
No changes in behavior	3	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	5 (6)
Unclear or mixed results	3	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	5 (6)
Grand total	26	2	18	14	3	7	3	11	84 (100)

Table 5 also classifies the program outcomes according to their components. Results indicate that all types of components were somewhat associated with improvements in CV behaviors. For instance, 13 programs based on activities were associated with improvements in behaviors. Conversely, participants did not improve their behavior according to three studies that evaluated programs based on activities. At last, one study reported positive behavioral changes following the participation in a program based on activities while attitudes remained stable.

Discussion

The objective of this ScR was to map out empirical evidence of studies related to the prevention of CV among 12 to 29 year olds. Data were extracted from 119 studies found in 114 scientific publications. The results provided insight into: (a) forms of CV targeted by prevention programs; (b) methodologies and designs; (c) program objectives and their components; and (d) program outcomes. Such results could then be used to plan future SRs or studies addressing some research gaps. Table 6 provides a summary of the main findings of our ScR and implications for future research and prevention.

Table 6.

Findings and Implications.

Intervention Structure and Impact	Critical Findings	Implications
Study characteristics and methodologies	• Prevention programs most frequently targeted cyberbullying • Most studies were conducted in Spain and the United States between 2015 and 2019 • RCTs were most used to measure program effectiveness	• Additional research is needed to conceptualize cyberbullying, as it is often used as a synonym for CV • The high prevalence of experimental and quasi-experimental designs permits causal claims about program impact on CV • Adding qualitative methods in systematic reviews will aid in highlighting how processes and implementation affect outcomes
Preventive approaches, objectives, and components	• Activities were the most common method of intervention implementation, followed closely by lessons • The objective of most programs was to target outcomes, meaning that most interventionists were interested in changing a specified behavior rather than a process	• Settings and objectives vary according to the type of CV, so prevention programs should be tailor-made • Universal prevention programs are common and are not indicative of the prevalence rates of some forms of CV
Study outcomes	• Program effectiveness may not be solely dependent on program components (e.g., activities/lessons) • More than half of all programs reported improvements in behaviors related to CV	• Results from this review indicate that evaluation studies contain results associated with different stages of theory of change • Evidence on the capability of programs to modify attitudes, a necessary step for behavioral change

Note. CV = cyberviolence; RCT = randomized controlled trial.

Most studies included in our ScR focused on the prevention of cyberbullying, leaving a gap in the literature regarding other types of CV (Mukred et al., 2024). This finding has implications for future research. Future studies need to carefully define cyberbullying as this concept seems to be used as a synonym for CV. Results found in several studies, however, show that motivations and settings vary according to the types of CV. For instance, information technologies facilitate intimate partner abuse (McLachlan and Harris, 2022). Besides using spyware and localization applications, CV directed at intimate partners includes harassment through text messages, tracking partners on social media, threats of or publications of intimate images or video (Afrouz, 2023). Other individuals use social media to distribute intimate and sexually explicit images without the consent of the other party (Henry & Powell, 2016). Hence, evaluation studies are needed to determine whether prevention programs attempting to change attitudes, risk factors, and behaviors related to these specific forms of CV are effective. Few studies are available at the moment to conduct a SR about the effect of prevention programs targeting CV associated with cyberdating, cyberstalking, or electronic harassment.

Our results, however, indicate that empirical evidence is available for overcoming limitations found in previous SRs. SRs generally focus on violence-related outcomes associated with a program and underestimate the importance of processes and implementation issues in the delivery of services (Blais et al., 2022; Weisburd et al., 2017). Hence, each prevention program is articulated around a theory of change (ToC) even if the latest was not always explicitly referred to in our sample. A ToC “describes how an intervention is expected to lead to intended results, showing the causal links from inputs to impact and the assumptions underlying the ToC” (Mayne, 2023, p. 102276). A ToC also incorporates potential obstacles likely to be experimented at different stages of the program. Results from our ScR indicate that studies on the prevention of CV contain results associated with different stages of their ToC that could eventually be useful to improve the effectiveness of prevention programs and have a precise understanding of their operation and delivery.

Accordingly, the present ScR shows that studies reported outcomes related to knowledge, skills, and online behaviors. Future SRs have the potential to enlighten processes involved in the prevention of CV. Changes in bystander interventions, increases in knowledge, and decreases in risk factors could be used as moderators at the meta-analysis stage of SRs. Similarly, prevention programs of CV varied in their components. Some prevention programs included activities such as group discussions and role play while others mainly relied on lessons. These components could also be used as moderators in meta-analyses. Meta-regression analysis, for instance, has been conducted to identify components likely to improve the effectiveness of school programs designed to prevent violence. The intensity of the programs, the involvement of both children and parents, the ecosystemic approach, and using various activities were associated with increased effectiveness (Gaffney et al., 2021; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Such reviews are highly needed in the field of the prevention of CV as effective programs are often supported by a sound theory of the problem (Eck, 2006).

Our results also show that several studies used experimental or quasi-experimental designs to assess the effect of prevention programs against CV, which is an encouraging result since evaluations in other fields of crime prevention generally rest on “weak” evaluation designs (Weisburd et al., 2017). Evaluations of programs based on experimental or quasi-experimental designs address several threats to internal validity, and their results permit causal claims about the impact of an intervention on CV (Farrington, 2003). Our ScR indicates that numerous high-quality studies are available to conduct SRs about the impact of prevention programs on CV (Pham et al., 2014). Several studies reported improvements in attitudes, skills, and behaviors, suggesting that some programs were effective in curbing CV. Additional studies are, however, needed to further appraise and make associations between the methodologies used in these evaluations, program components, and outcomes (see Weisburd et al., 2017 on this issue).

Our results show that most prevention programs used lessons, group discussions, role play, and leisure activities mainly found in primary crime prevention programs. In fact, among the 90 studies for which the information was available, 83 (or 92.2%) studies presented findings related to a primary crime prevention program. Additional studies need to assess programs developed for the prevention of CV among at-risk youths. While several expressions and their synonyms were used, our search strategy did not lead to the identification of empirical studies on the prevention of cyberbanging and or CV used specifically in the context of domestic violence.

Besides solely including studies that empirically addressed issues related to the prevention of CV, our ScR did not use exclusion criteria related to the location of the study (e.g., country) or sample characteristics. Studies on the prevention of CV were conducted in 30 countries, showing the possibility to implement programs that are culturally significant or adapted when needed (see Rodney et al., 2005 on this issue). While our ScR did not directly address issues related to diversity and inclusion, forthcoming SRs need to evaluate the effect of prevention programs according to culturally relevant indicators or gender. Such SRs are particularly needed as gender minorities and girls, for instance, are more likely to be the target of CV than males (Backe et al., 2018).

Finally, a few studies used qualitative methods and, accordingly, issues related with the implementation were seldom addressed. SRs combining qualitative and quantitative data are needed (Weisburd et al., 2017) as they inform on challenges that need to be addressed to facilitate the implementation of a program. For instance, in their SR about the impact of police-based diversion initiatives for drug consumption or simple possession, Blais et al. (2022) were able to cross qualitative and quantitative findings in order to identify effective initiatives as well as their components (e.g., user characteristics, eligibility criteria, services) and implementation strategies related to staff training, outreach activities, procedures for interagency collaboration, admission procedure and timely access to services. Their results provide guidance on the best practices to prevent harm related to the criminalization of drug consumption as well as indications for stakeholders or service providers interested in implementing police-based diversion programs (Blais et al., 2022).

Conclusion

The objective of this ScR was to explore themes associated with the prevention of CV in empirical literature. Our results show that several evaluation studies have been conducted, and accordingly, systematic reviews could be conducted to identify the best practices for the prevention of CV. Studies used qualitative and quantitative methodologies; the effect of prevention programs was assessed on various outcomes. This plethora of evaluation studies also represents an opportunity for future research to overcome limitations found in numerous systematic reviews. Upcoming systematic reviews could incorporate qualitative and quantitative findings to improve program theories and provide guidance on implementation procedures.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Noelle Warkentin

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Chaire de recherche sur la prévention de la violence armée dans la région métropolitaine (Research Chair on the Prevention of Armed Violence in the Metropolitain Region), grant number 2023-OMLM-337119.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be made available upon request.

Notes

Author Biographies

Noelle Warkentin, PhD, candidate at Simon Fraser University. Her main areas of interest include cybercrime, cybersecurity, cyber warfare, and the psychology of cyber-offenders. She has worked on projects related to cyberthreats to Canadian critical infrastructure, technology-facilitated sex trafficking, and cyber violence.

Arielle Chaîné, BA, is a master’s student in criminology with a specialization in forensic science and information at the Université de Montréal. Her research focuses on the online community surrounding 3D-printed firearms, with particular attention to the anonymity and concealment strategies used for the distribution and sharing of digital weapon files.

Pauline Vendeville, MSc, is pursuing an MSc in Criminology at the University of Montreal. Her current work investigates processes of radicalization within far-right groups. She is also involved in projects related to armed violence, public governance, and violence prevention.

Rebecca Ostiguy, PhD, student in criminology at the University of Montreal. Her research focuses on armed violence, urban territory, and environmental criminology. She is also involved in collaborative projects on policing, spatial crime analysis, and violence prevention.

David Décary-Hétu, PhD, is an associate professor at Université de Montréal following a Senior Scientist appointment at Université de Lausanne. His research leverages data analytics and social network analysis to study technology’s impact on crime. He is the deputy director of the International Centre on Comparative Criminology and chairs the ASC Cybercrime Division.

Étienne Blais, PhD, is a professor at the School of Criminology of the Université de Montréal and a regular researcher at the International Centre for Comparative Criminology. His research interests include the prevention of armed violence and (non)police interventions among vulnerable populations.

References

*Acosta

Chinman

Ebener

Malone

P. S.

Phillips

Wilks

(2019). Evaluation of a whole-school change intervention: Findings from a two-year cluster-randomized trial of the restorative practices intervention. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(5), 876–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01013-2

Afrouz

. (2023). The nature, patterns and consequences of technology-facilitated domestic abuse: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 24(2), 913–927. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211046752

*Agley

Jun

Eldridge

Agley

D. L.

Xiao

Sussman

Golzarri-Arroyo

Dickinson

S. L.

Jayawardene

Gassman

(2021). Effects of ACT out! social issue theater on social-emotional competence and bullying in youth and adolescents: Cluster randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 8(1), e25860. https://doi.org/10.2196/25860

*Aizenkot

Kashy-Rosenbaum

(2020). The effectiveness of safe surfing, an anti-cyberbullying intervention program in reducing online and offline bullying and improving perceived popularity and self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, 14(3), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2020-3-6

*Alcala

D. H.

Rio

J. F.

Calvo

G. G.

Pueyo

A. P.

(2019). Effects of a cooperative learning intervention program on cyberbullying in secondary education: A case study. Qualitative Report, 24(10), 2426–2440. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3862

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

*Athanasiades

Kamariotis

Psalti

Baldry

A. C.

Sorrentino

(2015). Internet use and cyberbullying among adolescent students in Greece: The “Tabby” project. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 12(1), 14–39.

Backe

E. L.

Lilleston

McCleary-Sills

(2018). Networked individuals, gendered violence: A literature review of cyberviolence. Violence and Gender, 5(3), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0056

*Baraldsnes

(2015). The prevalence of cyberbullying and the views of 5–12 grade pupils and teachers on cyberbullying prevention in Lithuanian schools. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(12), 949–959.

10.

*Barkoukis

Lazuras

Ourda

Tsorbatzoudis

(2016). Tackling psychosocial risk factors for adolescent cyberbullying: Evidence from a school-based intervention. Aggressive Behavior, 42(2), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21625

11.

*Barlett

C. P.

Heath

J. B.

Madison

C. S.

DeWitt

C. C.

Kirkpatrick

S. M.

Shackleford

Broder

(2020). You’re not anonymous online: The development and validation of a new cyberbullying intervention curriculum. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000226

12.

*Barlińska

Szuster

Winiewski

(2015). The role of short- and long-term cognitive empathy activation in preventing cyberbystander reinforcing cyberbullying behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18(4), 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0412

13.

*Benítez-Sillero

J. D.

Corredor-Corredor

Córdoba-Alcaide

Calmaestra

(2021). Intervention programme to prevent bullying in adolescents in physical education classes (PREBULLPE): A quasi-experimental study. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26(1), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1799968

14.

*Berne

Frisén

Oskarsson

(2020). High school students’ suggestions for supporting younger pupils counteract cyberbullying. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 61(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12538

15.

*Bickmam

D. S.

Moukalled

Inyart

H. K.

Zlokower

(2021). Evaluating a middle-school digital citizenship curriculum (screenshots): Quasi-experimental study. JMIR Mental Health, 8(9), e26197. https://doi.org/10.2196/26197

16.

*Biernesser

Ohmer

Nelson

Mann

Farzan

Schwanke

Radovic

(2023). Middle school students’ experiences with cyberbullying and perspectives toward prevention and bystander intervention in schools. Journal of School Violence, 22(3), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2023.2186417

17.

Blais

Brisson

Gagnon

Lemay

S.-A.

(2022). Diverting people who use drugs from the criminal justice system: A systematic review of police-based diversion measures. International Journal of Drug Policy, 105, 103697.

18.

Blaya

(2019). Cyberhate: A review and content analysis of intervention strategies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 163–172.

19.

*Bleize

D. N. M.

Anschütz

D. J.

Tanis

Buijzen

(2022). Testing a first online intervention to reduce conformity to cyber aggression in messaging apps. PLoS One, 17(8), e0272615. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272615

20.

*Bonell

Dodd

Allen

Bevilacqua

McGowan

Opondo

Sturgess

Elbourne

Warren

Viner

R. M.

(2020). Broader impacts of an intervention to transform school environments on student behaviour and school functioning: Post hoc analyses from the INCLUSIVE cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open, 10(5), e031589. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031589

21.

*Bowler

Knobel

Mattern

(2015). From cyberbullying to well-being: A narrative-based participatory approach to values-oriented design for social media. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1274–1293. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23270

22.

Boyd

D. M.

Ellison

N. B.

(2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.

23.

*Calvete

Cortazar

Fernandez-Gonzalez

Echezarraga

Beranuy

Leon

Gonzalez-Cabrera

Orue

(2021). Effect of a brief intervention on cyberbullying and grooming in adolescents. Psychosocial Intervention, 30(2), 75–84.

24.

*Calvete

Fernández-González

Orue

(2023). A growth mindset and self-affirmation intervention to reduce violent and risky online behaviors: The moderating role of previous victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(7–8), 5875–5901. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221127221

25.

*Calvete

Orue

Fernández-González

Prieto-Fidalgo

(2019). Effects of an incremental theory of personality intervention on the reciprocity between bullying and cyberbullying victimization and perpetration in adolescents. PLoS One, 14(11), e0224755. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224755

26.

*Carrascosa

Cava

M.-J.

Buelga

de Jesus

S.-N.

(2019). Reduction of sexist attitudes, romantic myths, and aggressive behaviors in adolescents: Efficacy of the DARSI program. Psicothema, 31(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.245

27.

*Carrington

Campbell

Saggers

Ashburner

Vicig

Dillon-Wallace

Hwang

Y.-S.

(2017). Recommendations of school students with autism spectrum disorder and their parents in regard to bullying and cyberbullying prevention and intervention. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(10), 1045–1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1331381

28.

*Cassidy

Brown

Jackson

(2012). “Making Kind Cool”: Parents’ suggestions for preventing cyber bullying and fostering cyber kindness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.4.f

29.

*Chamizo-Nieto

M. T.

Wallace

Rey

(2023). Anti-cyberbullying interventions at school: Comparing the effectiveness of gratitude and psychoeducational programmes. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 19(2), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2170821

30.

*Chaux

Velásquez

A. M.

Schultze-Krumbholz

Scheithauer

(2016). Effects of the cyberbullying prevention program media heroes (Medienhelden) on traditional bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 42(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21637

31.

Chen

Chan

K. L.

Guo

Chen

C. K. M.

(2023). Effectiveness of digital health interventions in reducing bullying and cyberbullying: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(3), 1986–2002.

32.

*Choi

Park

(2021). Can online education programs solve the cyberbullying problem? Educating South Korean elementary students in the COVID-19 era. Sustainability, 13(20), 11211. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011211

33.

*Cross

Shaw

Epstein

Pearce

Barnes

Burns

Waters

Lester

Runions

(2018). Impact of the Friendly Schools whole-school intervention on transition to secondary school and adolescent bullying behaviour. European Journal of Education, 53(4), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12307

34.

*Cross

Shaw

Hadwen

Cardoso

Slee

Roberts

Thomas

Barnes

(2016). Longitudinal impact of the Cyber Friendly Schools program on adolescents’ cyberbullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 42(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21609

35.

*Crosslin

Golman

(2014). “Maybe you don’t want to face it”—College students’ perspectives on cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.007

36.

*Cunningham

C. E.

Chen

Vaillancourt

Rimas

Deal

Cunningham

L. J.

Ratcliffe

. (2015). Modeling the anti-cyberbullying preferences of university students: Adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 41(4), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21560

37.

*Cunningham

C. E.

Rimas

Mielko

Mapp

Cunningham

Buchanan

Vaillancourt

Chen

Deal

Marcus

. (2016). What limits the effectiveness of antibullying programs? A thematic analysis of the perspective of teachers. Journal of School Violence, 15(4), 460–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2015.1095100

38.

*Damra

J. K.

Omari

O. A.

(2023). The efficacy and feasibility of the Arizona attorney general’s school-based cyber-safety promotion and cyberbullying prevention intervention among middle school adolescents in Oman. Psychology in the Schools, 60(4), 1042–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22832

39.

*Del Rey

Casas

J. A.

Ortega

. (2012). The ConRed Program, an evidence-based practice. Comunicar, 20(39), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.3916/C39-2012-03-03

40.

*Del Rey

Casas

J. A.

Ortega

. (2016). Impact of the ConRed program on different cyberbulling roles. Aggressive Behavior, 42(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21608

41.

*Del Rey

Ortega-Ruiz

Casas

J. A

. (2019). Asegúrate: An intervention program against cyberbullying based on teachers’ commitment and on design of its instructional materials. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3), 434. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030434

42.

*DeSmet

Bastiaensens

Van Cleemput

Poels

Vandebosch

Deboutte

Herrewijn

Malliet

Pabian

Van Broeckhoven

De Troyer

Deglorie

Van Hoecke

Samyn

De Bourdeaudhuij

(2018). The efficacy of the Friendly Attac serious digital game to promote prosocial bystander behavior in cyberbullying among young adolescents: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.011

43.

*Doane

A. N.

Kelley

M. L.

Pearson

M. R.

(2016). Reducing cyberbullying: A theory of reasoned action-based video prevention program for college students. Aggressive Behavior, 42(2), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21610

44.

Eck

J. E.

(2006). When is a bologna sandwich better than sex ? A defense of small-n case study evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(3), 345–362.

45.

*Englander

Parti

McCoy

(2015). Evaluation of a university-based bullying and cyberbullying prevention program. Journal of Modern Education Review, 5(11), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.15341/jmer(2155-7993)/10.05.2015/002

46.

Elsaesser

Patton

D.U.

Weinstein

Santiago

Clarke

Eschmann

(2021). Small becomes big: Adolescent perceptions of how social media features escalate online conflict to offline violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 122: 105898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105898.

47.

*Epelde-Larrañaga

Oñederra Ramírez

J. A.

Estrada-Vidal

L. I.

(2020). Music as a Resource Against Bullying and Cyberbullying: Intervention in two Centers in Spain. Sustainability, 12(5), 2057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052057

48.

*Espelage

D. L.

Low

Van Ryzin

M. J.

Polanin

J. R.

(2015). Clinical trial of second step middle school program: Impact on bullying, cyberbullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual harassment perpetration. School Psychology Review, 44(4), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-15-0052.1

49.

Farrington

D. P.

(2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 49 68.

50.

*Faucher

Cassidy

Jackson

(2020). Awareness, policy, privacy, and more: Post-secondary students voice their solutions to cyberbullying. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 10(3), 795–815. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe10030058

51.

*Fernández González

Calvete

Sánchez Álvarez

. (2020). Efficacy of a brief intervention based on an Incremental Theory of Personality in the prevention of adolescent dating violence: A randomized controlled trial. Intervención Psicosocial, 29(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.5093/PI2019A14

52.

*Ferreira

P. C.

Veiga Simão

A. M.

Paiva

Martinho

Prada

Ferreira

Santos

(2021). Exploring empathy in cyberbullying with serious games. Computers and Education, 166, 104155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104155

53.

*Ferrer-Cascales

Albaladejo-Blázquez

Sánchez-SanSegundo

Portilla-Tamarit

Lordan

Ruiz-Robledillo

(2019). Effectiveness of the TEI program for bullying and cyberbullying reduction and school climate improvement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(4), 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040580

54.

*Fiorentini

Palladino

B. E.

Vespoli

Menesini

(2022). ICTs opportunities and risks: Effectiveness of a nationwide intervention. Cyberpsychology, 16(3), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2022-3-6

55.

*Foshee

V. A.

Benefield

Dixon

K. S.

Chang

L.-Y.

Senkomago

Ennett

S. T.

Moracco

K. E.

Bowling

J. M.

(2015). The effects of moms and teens for safe dates: A dating abuse prevention program for adolescents exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(5), 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0272-6

56.

*Fredrick

S. S.

Coyle

King

(2023). Middle and high school teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying prevention and digital citizenship. Psychology in the Schools, 60(6), 1958–1978. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22844

57.

Gaffney

Ttofi

M. M.

Farrington

D. P.

(2021). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(2), e1143.

58.

Galende

Ozamiz-Etxebarria

Jaureguizar

Redondo

(2020). Cyber dating violence prevention programs in universal populations: A systematic review. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 13, 1089–1099. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S275414

59.

*Garaigordobil

Martínez-Valderrey

(2015a). Effects of Cyberprogram 2.0 on “face-to-face” bullying, cyberbullying, and empathy. Psicothema, 27(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2014.78

60.

*Garaigordobil

Martínez-Valderrey

(2015b). The effectiveness of Cyberprogram 2.0 on conflict resolution strategies and self-esteem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(2), 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.007

61.

*Garaigordobil

Martínez-Valderrey

(2016). Impact of Cyberprogram 2.0 on different types of school violence and aggressiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 428. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00428

62.

*Garaigordobil

Martínez-Valderrey

(2018). Technological resources to prevent cyberbullying during adolescence: The Cyberprogram 2.0 program and the Cooperative Cybereduca 2.0 Videogame. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 745. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00745

63.

*Giménez-Gualdo

A.-M.

Arnaiz-Sánchez

Cerezo-Ramírez

Prodócimo

(2018). Teachers’ and students’ perception about cyberbullying. Intervention strategies in primary and secondary education. Comunicar, 26(56), 29. https://doi.org/10.3916/C56-2018-03

64.

*Gradinger

Yanagida

Strohmeier

Spiel

(2015). Prevention of cyberbullying and cyber victimization: Evaluation of the ViSC Social Competence Program. Journal of School Violence, 14(1), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.963231

65.

*Gradinger

Yanagida

Strohmeier

Spiel

(2016). Effectiveness and sustainability of the ViSC Social Competence Program to prevent cyberbullying and cyber-victimization: Class and individual level moderators. Aggressive Behavior, 42(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21631

66.

*Guarini

Menin

Menabò

Brighi

(2019). RPC teacher-based program for improving coping strategies to deal with cyberbullying. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(6), 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060948

67.

Hango

(2023). Online harms faced by youth and young adults: The prevalence and nature of cybervictimization. Statistics Canada.

68.

*Harshman

K. L.

(2014). Assessing effectiveness of age-appropriate curriculum on Internet safety education and cyberbullying prevention [ProQuest Dissertations & Theses]

69.

Hayes

A. F.

Krippendorff

(2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.

70.

Henry

Powell

(2016). Technology-facilitated sexual violence: A literature review of empirical research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016650189

71.

*Herrera

Kupczynski

Mundy

M.-A.

(2015). The impact of training on faculty and student perceptions of cyberbullying in an urban South Central Texas Middle School. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27, 1–29.

72.

*Ingram

K. M.

Espelage

D. L.

Merrin

G. J.

Valido

Heinhorst

Joyce

(2019). Evaluation of a virtual reality enhanced bullying prevention curriculum pilot trial. Journal of Adolescence, 71(1), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.12.006

73.

*Kim

J. H.

Hahlweg

Schulz

(2021). Early childhood parenting and adolescent bullying behavior: Evidence from a randomized intervention at ten-year follow-up. Social Science & Medicine, 282, 114114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114114

74.

Kowalski

R. M.

Giumetti

G. W.

Schroeder

A. N.

Lattanner

M. R.

Hinshaw

S. P.

(2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618

75.

Kowalski

R. M.

Morgan

C. A.

Drake-Lavelle

Allison

(2016). Cyberbullying among college students with disabilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.044

76.

*Kutok

E. R.

Dunsiger

Patena

J. V.

Nugent

N. R.

Riese

Rosen

R. K.

Ranney

M. L.

(2021). A cyberbullying media-based prevention intervention for adolescents on Instagram: Pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 8(9), e26029. https://doi.org/10.2196/26029

77.

*Lee

M.-S.

Zi-Pei

Svanström

Dalal

(2013). Cyber bullying prevention: intervention in Taiwan. PLoS One, 8(5), e64031. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064031

78.

*Leung

A. N. M.

Wong

Farver

J. M.

(2019). Testing the effectiveness of an E-course to combat cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 22(9), 569–577. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0609

79.

*Lukács

J. Á.

Takács

Soósné Kiss

Kapitány-Fövény

Falus

Feith

H. J

. (2023). The effects of a cyberbullying intervention programme among primary school students. Child & Youth Care Forum, 52(4), 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-022-09714-9

80.

Marganski

Melander

(2018). Intimate partner violence victimization in the cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its association with in-person dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(7), 1071–1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515614283

81.

Mayne

(2023). Assumptions in theories of change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 98, 102276.

82.

McGeeney

Hanson

(2017). Digital Romance: A research project exploring young people’s use of technology in their romantic relationships and love lives. National Crime Agency and Brook.

83.

McLachlan

Harris

(2022). Intimate risks: Examining online and offline abuse, homicide flags, and femicide. Victims & Offenders, 17(5), 623–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2036658

84.

*Mehari

K. R.

Moore

Waasdorp

T. E.

Varney

Berg

Leff

S. S.

(2018). Cyberbullying prevention: Insight and recommendations from youths, parents, and paediatricians. Child Care Health and Development, 44, 616–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12569

85.

*Menesini

Nocentini

Palladino

B. E.

(2012). Empowering students against bullying and cyberbullying: Evaluation of an Italian Peer-led Mode. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 313–320.

86.

*Midgett

Doumas

D. M.

Hausheer

(2023). Development of a teacher module for a brief, bystander bullying intervention for middle schools: Perspectives from school personnel. Contemporary School Psychology, 27(3), 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-022-00413-9

87.

*Midgett

Doumas

D. M.

Johnston

Trull

Miller

(2018). Rethinking bullying interventions for high school students: A qualitative study. Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling, 4(2), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/23727810.2017.1381932

88.

*Milosevic

Verma

Carter

Vigil

Laffan

Davis

O’Higgins Norman

(2023). Effectiveness of artificial intelligence–based cyberbullying interventions from youth perspective. Social Media + Society, 9(1), 20563051221147325. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221147325

89.

*Milosevic

Vladisavljevic

(2020). Norwegian children’s perceptions of effectiveness of social media companies’ cyberbullying policies: An exploratory study. Journal of Children and Media, 14(1), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2019.1695219

90.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G

.; the PRISMA Group. (2009). Reprint—Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Physical Therapy, 89(9), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873

91.

Mukred

Mokhtar

U. A.

Moafa

F. A.

Gumaei

Sadiq

A. S.

Al-Othmani

(2024). The roots of digital aggression: Exploring cyber-violence through a systematic literature review. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 4(2), 100281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2024.100281

92.

Munn

Peters

M. D.

Stern

Tufanaru

McArthur

Aromataris

(2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 1–7.

93.

*Negi

Magre

(2019). Effectiveness of Cyber Bullying Sensitization Program (CBSP) to reduce cyber bullying behavior among middle school children. International Journal of Cyber Research and Education, 1(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCRE.2019010105

94.

E. D.

Chua

J. Y. X.

Shorey

(2022). The effectiveness of educational interventions on traditional bullying and cyberbullying among adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1), 132–151.

95.

Nocentini

Zambuto

Menesini

(2015). Anti-bullying programs and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs): A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 52–60.

96.

*Ortega-Barón

Buelga

Ayllón

Martínez-Ferrer

Cava

M.-J.

(2019). Effects of Intervention Program Prev@cib on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(4), 527. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040527

97.

*Ortega-Baron

Buelga

Cava

M. J.

Iranzo

(2022) Efficacy of the Prev@cib 2.0 program in cyberbullying, helping behaviors and perception of help from the teacher. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Pyschology, 20(2), 427–448.

98.

*Ortega-Barón

González-Cabrera

Machimbarrena

J. M.

Montiel

(2021). Safety.Net: A pilot study on a Multi-Risk Internet Prevention Program. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4249. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084249

99.

*Ortega-Ruiz

Del Rey

Casas

J. A.

(2012). Knowing, building and living together on internet and social networks: The ConRed Cyberbullying Prevention Program. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-2921

100.

*Palladino

B. E.

Nocentini

Menesini

(2012). Online and offline peer led models against bullying and cyberbullying. Psicothema, 24(4), 634–639.

101.

*Palladino

B. E.

Nocentini

Menesini

(2016). Evidence-based intervention against bullying and cyberbullying: Evaluation of the NoTrap! program in two independent trials. Aggressive Behavior, 42(2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21636

102.

Patchin

J. W.

Hinduja

(2012). Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives. Routledge.

103.

Patton

D. U.

Eschmann

R. D.

Butler

D. A.

(2013). Internet banging: New trends in social media, gang violence, masculinity and hip hop. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A54–A59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.035

104.

*Paul

Smith

P. K.

Blumberg

H. H.

(2012). Comparing student perceptions of coping strategies and school interventions in managing bullying and cyberbullying incidents. Pastoral Care in Education, 30(2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2012.679957

105.

*Pelfrey

W. V.

Weber

N. L.

(2015). Student and school staff strategies to combat cyberbullying in an urban student population. Preventing School Failure, 59(4), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.924087

106.

*Pennell

Campbell

Tangen

(2022). The education and the legal system: Inter-systemic collaborations identified by Australian schools to more effectively reduce cyberbullying. Preventing School Failure, 66(2), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.2007835

107.

Peterson

Densley

(2017). Cyber violence: What do we know and where do we go from here? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.012

108.

*Pfetsch

Schultze-Krumbholz

Füllgraf

(2018). Does the information about classroom norms change the individual injunctive norms about cyberbullying?—A minimal intervention study. International Journal of Developmental Science, 12(3–4), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-180250

109.

Pham

M. T.

Rajić

Greig

J. D.

Sargeant

J. M.

Papadopoulos

McEwen

S. A.

(2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123

110.

*Popovac

Fine

(2018). An intervention using the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Model: Tackling cyberaggression and cyberbullying in South African adolescents. In Reducing Cyberbullying in Schools (pp. 225–244). Academic Press.

111.

*Pyżalski

Plichta

Szuster

Barlińska

(2022). Cyberbullying characteristics and prevention—What can we learn from narratives provided by adolescents and their teachers? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), 11589. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811589

112.

*Ranney

M. L.

Pittman

S. K.

Moseley

Morgan

K. E.

Riese

Ybarra

Cunningham

Rosen

(2021). Cyberbullying prevention for adolescents: Iterative qualitative methods for mobile intervention design. JMIR Formative Research, 5(8), e25900. https://doi.org/10.2196/25900

113.

*Rdemond

Locks

J. V.

Smart

(2018). Pre-service teachers’ perspectives of cyberbullying. Computers & Education, 119, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.004

114.

*Roberto

A. J.

Eden

Savage

M. W.

Ramos-Salazar

Deiss

D. M.

(2014). Outcome evaluation results of school-based cybersafety promotion and cyberbullying prevention intervention for middle school students. Health Communication, 29(10), 1029–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.831684

115.

Rodney

L.W.

Johnson

D.L.

Srivastava

R.P.

(2005). The impact of culturally relevant violence prevention models on school-age youth. Journal Primary Prevention, 26, 439–454.

116.

*Ryan

Kariuki

Yilmaz

(2011). A comparative analysis of cyberbullying perceptions of preservice educators: Canada and Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 1–12.

117.

*Said-Hung

Gonzalez-Prieto

Pallarès-Piquer

(2021). Preventing cyberbullying through ICT-centric education: A case study. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(3), 459–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2021.1908415

118.

*Sánchez-Jiménez

Muñoz-Fernández

Ortega-Rivera

(2018). Efficacy evaluation of “Dat-e Adolescence”: A dating violence prevention program in Spain. PLoS One, 13(10), e0205802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205802

119.

*Savage

M. W.

Deiss

D. M.

Roberto

A. J.

Aboujaoude

(2017). Theory-based formative research on an anti-cyberbullying victimization intervention message. Journal of Health Communication, 22(2), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1252818

120.

*Schoeps

Villanueva

Prado-Gascó

V. J.

Montoya-Castilla

(2018). Development of emotional skills in adolescents to prevent cyberbullying and improve subjective well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2050. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02050

121.

*Schultze-Krumbholz

Schultze

Zagorscak

Wölfer

Scheithauer

(2016). Feeling cybervictims’ pain—The effect of empathy training on cyberbullying. Aggressive Behavior, 42(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21613

122.

*Selkie

Evans

Ton

Midamba

Moreno

M. A.

(2018). Ideas for addressing electronic harassment among adolescents attending a video blogging convention. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 973. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5907-6

123.

*Shaw

Cross

Zubrick

S. R.

(2015). Testing for response shift bias in evaluations of school antibullying programs. Evaluation Review, 39(6), 527–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X16629863

124.

*Sichel

C. E.

Javdani

Ueberall

Liggett

(2019). Leveraging youths’ digital literacies: The E-Responder social media violence interruption model and pilot evaluation. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 47(2), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1582145

125.

*Sorrentino

Baldry

A. C.

Farrington

D. P.

(2018). The efficacy of the tabby improved prevention and intervention program in reducing cyberbullying and cybervictimization among students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2536. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112536

126.

*Stauffer

S. V.

(2011). High school teachers’ perceptions of cyber bullying prevention and intervention strategies [ProQuest Dissertations & Theses]

127.

*Sullivan

T. N.

Farrell

A. D.

Sutherland

K. S.

Behrhorst

K. L.

Garthe

R. C.

Greene

(2021). Evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in US urban middle schools using a multiple baseline experimental design. Prevention Science, 22(8), 1134–1146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01244-5

128.

*Tangen

Campbell

(2010). Cyberbullying prevention: One primary school’s approach. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20(2), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.20.2.225

129.

*Tanrikulu

Kinay

Aricak

(2015). Sensibility development program against cyberbullying. New Media & Society, 17(5), 708–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813511923

130.

*Thompson

(2022). Teachers and cyberbullying: Interventions, workarounds and frustrations. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 50(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2021.1895967

131.

*Tiiri

Luntamo

Mishina

Sillanmäki

Brunstein Klomek

Sourander

(2020). Did bullying victimization decrease after nationwide school-based antibullying program? A time-trend study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(4), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.03.023

132.

Tokunaga

R. S.

(2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014

133.

*Tomczyk

Włoch

(2019). Cyberbullying in the light of challenges of school-based prevention. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 7(3), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE1903013T

134.

*Touloupis

Athanasiades

(2022). Evaluation of a cyberbullying prevention program in elementary schools: The role of self-esteem enhancement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 980091. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.980091

135.

Ttofi

M. M.

Farrington

D. P.

(2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56.

136.

*Veiga Simão

A. M.

Costa Ferreira

Pereira

Oliveira

Paulino

Rosa

Ribeiro

Coheur

Carvalho

J. P.

Trancoso

. (2021). Prosociality in cyberspace: Developing emotion and behavioral regulation to decrease aggressive communication. Cognitive Computation, 13(3), 736–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09852-7

137.

*Vivolo-Kantor

A. M.

Niolon

P. H.

Estefan

L. F.

V. D.

Tracy

A. J.

Latzman

N. E.

Little

T. D.

Lang

K. M.

DeGue

Tharp

A. T.

(2021). Middle school effects of the Dating Matters® comprehensive teen dating violence prevention model on physical violence, bullying, and cyberbullying: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science, 22(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01071-9

138.

*Wachs

Bilz

Niproschke

Schubarth

(2019). Bullying intervention in schools: A multilevel analysis of teachers success in handling bullying from the students perspective. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(5), 642–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431618780423

139.

Wang

Jiang

(2023). Effectiveness of parent-related interventions on cyberbullying among adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(5), 3678–3696.

140.

Weisburd

Farrington

D. P.

Gill

(2017). What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation: An assessment of systematic reviews. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(2), Article 2.

141.

Welsh

B. C.

Farrington

D. P.

(2001). Toward an evidence-based approach to preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 158 173.

142.

*White

W. E.

Carmody

(2018). Preventing online victimization: College students views on intervention and prevention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(14), 2291–2307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515625501

143.

*Williford

Elledge

L. C.

Boulton

A. J.

DePaolis

K. J.

Little

T. D.

Salmivalli

(2013). Effects of the KiVa Antibullying Program on cyberbullying and cybervictimization frequency among Finnish youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 42(6), 820–833. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.787623

144.

*Wnęk-Gozdek

Tomczyk

Mróz

(2019). Cyberbullying prevention in the opinion of teachers. Медиаобразование, 59(4), 594–607.

145.

*Wölfer

Schultze-Krumbholz

Zagorscak

Jäkel

Göbel

Scheithauer

(2014). Prevention 2.0: Targeting cyberbullying @ school. Prevention Science, 15(6), 879–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0438-y

146.

*Young

Tully

Ramirez

(2017). School administrator perceptions of cyberbullying facilitators and barriers to preventive action: A qualitative study. Health Education & Behavior, 44(3), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198116673814

147.

*Yüksel

Çekiç

Kocayörük

(2019). The effect of the cognitive behavioral therapy based cyberbullying prevention program. International Journal of Human and Behavioral Science, 5(2), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.19148/ijhbs.659107

148.

*Zagorscak

Schultze-Krumbholz

Heinrich

Wölfer

Scheithauer

(2019). Efficacy of cyberbullying prevention on somatic symptoms—Randomized controlled trial applying a reasoned action approach. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(4), 908–923. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12429

149.

*Zeng

Cao

Zhang

Ding

(2024). Effects of interpretation bias modification on hostile attribution bias and reactive cyber-aggression in Chinese adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Current Psychology, 43(3), 2373–2386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04433-3

A Scoping Review of Empirical Studies Addressing the Prevention of Cyberviolence

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Different Forms of Cyberviolence

The Need to Identify the Best Practices Against Various Forms of Cyberviolence

Problem Statement

Methodology

Search Strategy

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Strategy for Summarizing and Reporting the Data

Results

Study Selection Process

Study Characteristics and Methodologies

Components and Objectives Found in Prevention Programs

Intervention Outcomes

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Notes

Author Biographies

References