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