Table 4.
Associations between traditional bullying victimization and cyber-teasing and sociodemographic characteristics of study sample
| 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 |
aAdjusted Odds Ratio;bConfidence interval
Statistically significant difference between victims and non-victims; *p ≤ .05, **P ≤ .01