Skip to main content

Table 4 Associations between traditional bullying victimization and cyber-teasing and sociodemographic characteristics of study sample

From: Prevalence and patterns of traditional bullying victimization and cyber-teasing among college population in Spain

Characteristics

Cyber-teasing victim only

Traditional bullying victimization only

Cyber-teasing and traditional bullying victimization

Neither

 

AORa (95 % CIb)

AORa (95 % CI)

AOR (95 % CI)

Ref.

Gender

    

Girl

0.26 (0.08–0.79)

1.49 (0.84–2.64)

1.34 (0.81–2.23)

1.00

Boy (ref)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Nationality

    

Spanish

1.92 (0.59–6.24)

2.50 (0.86–7.23)

1.08 (0.52–2.23)

1.00

Foreigner (ref)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Grade

    

 2°

3.86 (1.19–12.48)*

2.10 (0.96–4.68)

2.92 (1.44–5.94)*

1.00

 3°

3.94 (1.20–12.94)*

1.60 (0.69–3.73)

2.44 (1.17–5.05)*

1.00

 4°

0.50 (0.84, 3.01)

1.46 (0.61–3.52)

1.61 (0.64–3.50)

1.00

 5°

2.14 (0.48–9.51)

2.67 (0.98–7.22)

2.60 (1.05–6.43)*

1.00

 6° (ref)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Economic problems

    

 Yes

2.46 (1.29–4.71)**

1.54 (0.70–2.51)

1.17 (0.72–1.91)

1.00

 No (ref)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Family conflicts

    

 Yes

1.34 (0.87–2.08)

1.31 (0.83–2.06)

1.62 (1.10–2.34)*

1.00

 No (ref)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Alcohol use

    

 Yes

0.84 (0.38–1.87)

1.63 (0.80–3.31)

1.16 (0.66–2.03)

1.00

 No (ref)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Cannabis use

    

 Yes

1.61 (0.48–2.80)

1.31 (0.66–2.60)

0.74 (0.39–1.40)

1.00

 No (ref)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

  1. aAdjusted Odds Ratio;bConfidence interval
  2. Statistically significant difference between victims and non-victims; *p ≤ .05, **P ≤ .01