Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aggviobeh

School bullying and cyberbullying in academically gifted students: A

systematic review
Ángela Martínez-Monteagudo, María Carmen Martínez-Monteagudo *, Beatriz Delgado
Department of Developmental Psychology and Didactic, Faculty of Education, University of Alicante, Carretera de San Vicente del Raspeig, s/n, 03080 Alicante, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review of the research works that have analyzed school
School bullying bullying and cyberbullying in academically gifted students. The search was carried out in the main psychology
Peer violence databases (Scopus, Web of Science, and Psych Info), considering works from the past 22 years (2000–2022). One
Cyberbullying
hundred and sixty-five documents were analyzed, of which fifteen studies complied with the inclusion criteria.
Victim
Aggressor
Seven of these made comparisons between gifted and non-gifted students, classified according to three per­
Academically gifted students spectives: (a) studies concluding that gifted students have a greater risk of being victims than non-gifted students
Systematic review and have a lower risk of being a bully, due to the characteristics of this group; (b) studies that affirm that gifted
students have a lower risk of being a bully or victim, as compared to non-gifted students since their high
cognitive level allows them to effectively handle social and emotional challenges, thereby contributing to a lower
level of participation in bullying or victimization behavior; (c) and studies concluding that gifted students have a
similar risk of being a bully or victim as non-gifted students. Studies that only use samples of gifted students
reveal a high prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying, and very negative consequences on this group. Although
the limited number of studies does not allow for a definitive confirmation of a greater vulnerability to bullying by
academically gifted students, it does confirm the need to recommend that the educational community offer
preventive elements and specific interventions for this group.

1. Introduction 2014; Monks et al., 2009; Stassen-Berger, 2007). As for cyberbullying,

its prevalence is situated between 4 % and 36 % for cybervictims and
School bullying is one of the most common and challenging problems between 16 and 18 % for cyberbullies (Patchin & Hinduja, 2012; Suzuki
in education. It is the physical or psychological persecution by a student et al., 2012). In a meta-analysis, Modecki et al. (2014) revealed varia­
(or group of students) toward another, who is selected as the victim of tions of prevalence ranging from 5 to 32 % for cyberbullies (mean of 16
repeated attacks (Olweus, 2013). In addition, the ever-increasing use %) and between 2 and 56 % for cyberbullying victims (mean of 15 %).
and abuse of information technologies have taken bullying into virtual These high levels of variation may be due to the distinct conceptuali­
environments (cyberbullying). Cyberbullying is defined as «an aggres­ zations of bullying and cyberbullying, the distinct cutoff points used to
sive and intentional behavior that is repeated frequently over time establish its frequency, the time framework used (an incident occurring
through the use, by an individual or group, of electronic devices on a during the past 2 months, the last year, at any time, etc.), the type of
victim that is unable to easily defend him/herself» (Smith et al., 2008, p. methodology used, age ranges of the sample, etc. Despite these major
376). Thus, cyberbullying shares certain characteristics with traditional variations in prevalence rates, empirical evidence suggests that school
bullying (intentionality and repetition) while also having its own char­ bullying and cyberbullying are some of the most concerning and com­
acteristics such as anonymity and a virtual environment. mon problems of the educational environment, having devastating
International reviews have indicated a prevalence of traditional consequences for the individuals implicated in them (Delgado et al.,
bullying, with between 10 % and 33 % of students recognizing that they 2019).
have been victims. Between 4 % and 15 % stated that they have acted as Thus, numerous studies have corroborated the negative conse­
bullies (Hong & Espelage, 2012; Hymel & Swearer, 2015; Modecki et al., quences of school bullying and cyberbullying on both victims and bullies

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: amm382@alu.ua.es (Á. Martínez-Monteagudo), maricarmen.martinez@ua.es (M.C. Martínez-Monteagudo), beatriz.delgado@ua.es
(B. Delgado).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2023.101842
Received 7 September 2021; Received in revised form 11 April 2023; Accepted 12 April 2023
Available online 16 April 2023
1359-1789/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
Á. Martínez-Monteagudo et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

(Delgado et al., 2019; Garaigordobil & Aliri, 2013; Wachs, 2012). Vic­ compared to non-gifted students.
tims have received more attention, with respect to the consequences of Currently, however, the scientific literature suggests three distinct
bullying or cyberbullying. Numerous studies have found that victims of perspectives with regard to bullying and cyberbullying in academically
bullying may experience anxiety, depression, stress, fear, low self- gifted students. The first suggests that gifted students have specific
esteem, feelings of anger and frustration, defenselessness, nervousness, characteristics that increase their risk of being victimized, such as
irritation, sleeplessness, sleeping disorders, suicidal thinking, and diffi­ perfectionism, sensitivity, asynchronous development, high awareness
culties in concentrating, all of which may ultimately affect their scho­ of moral and ethical issues, a strong sense of individualism, motivation,
lastic performance (González-Cabrera, Machimbarrena, Ortega-Barón, early development of their internal locus of control, a passion to learn,
& Álvarez-Bardón, 2019; Kowalski et al., 2014; Sampasa & Hamilton, and outstanding academic performance (Clark, 2002; Cross, 2001;
2015; Trompeter et al., 2018; Van Geel et al., 2014). Bullies, on the other Fornia & Frame, 2001; Hargrove, 2010; Peterson, 2009; Peterson & Ray,
hand, are more likely to experience moral disconnection, a lack of 2006a; Schuler, 2002; Silverman, 2002; Webb et al., 2005). One com­
empathy with victims, problems caused by their aggressive behavior, mon characteristic of academically gifted students is their asynchronous
criminal conduct, drug and alcohol consumption, abusive use of the development, in which their cognitive development is not usually
internet and social media, and school absenteeism (Bergmann & Baier, accompanied by their social or emotional development. These students
2018; Cañas et al., 2020; Gradinger et al., 2009; Kowalski & Limber, may lack appropriate social skills, making them, therefore, more
2007). As for sex and the distinct types of bullying, in general, boys are vulnerable to bullying and rejection by their classmates (Christopher &
more likely to bully their victims in a physical and direct manner, while Shewmaker, 2010; Gross, 2002; Hyatt, 2010; Oliver & Candappa, 2003;
girls tend to resort to indirect verbal and relational abuse (Carrera et al., Peterson, 2009; Richard et al., 2011; Thomson & Gunter, 2006). Peers
2013; Popp & Peguero, 2011). In terms of age, studies confirm a higher may perceive them as being too smart, having a vocabulary that is overly
prevalence of physical and direct aggression during the lower grades, extensive, or being desperate for attention. This may lead to their being
being substituted, during adolescence, by indirect aggression types, with ridiculed by other students, referring to them as “know-it-alls”, “nerds”,
verbal and social exclusion bullying increasing significantly (Hasekiu, or “idiots” (Alvino, 1991; Peterson & Ray, 2006a). On the other hand,
2013). gifted children typically are embarrassed to admit that they cannot
Most of the studies on school bullying and cyberbullying looked at control the situation (Hargrove, 2010; Vaivre-Douret, 2011). Therefore,
the general population, with few works considering these phenomena in their academic advantage does not prevent them from suffering the
students having special educational needs. However, studies have consequences of bullying. From this perspective, these characteristics
confirmed a very high probability that children and adolescents with also mean that the probability of gifted students acting as bullies is lower
special educational needs will be bullied (Carter & Spencer, 2006; Flynt than that of non-gifted students.
& Morton, 2007; Oliveira & Barbosa, 2012), since a large percentage of On the other hand, a second perspective defends the idea that
this population has deficits in social skills, increasing their probability of academically gifted students are not especially vulnerable to bullying. It
suffering peer rejection. suggests that their high cognitive levels help them to effectively confront
However, students with special educational needs constitute a social and emotional challenges, thereby contributing to a lower
particularly heterogeneous group that encompasses a range of students, participation in bullying or victimization behavior (Bain & Bell, 2004;
from those with intellectual disabilities to those identified as being Estell et al., 2009; Francis et al., 2016; Litster & Roberts, 2011). Preuss
gifted. Research has suggested that students are typically bullied and Dubow (2004) corroborated that gifted students tend to use active
because they are perceived by their peers as being different. Academi­ resolution approaches in socially stressful situations. Cohen et al. (1994)
cally gifted students, especially, may be perceived as different from their found that these students had higher socio-metric scores than non-gifted
classmates in a variety of aspects (Dalosto & Alençar, 2013; Erwin, 2015; students, suggesting that gifted students are generally accepted by their
MacFarlane & Mina, 2018). Not only do these students have higher in­ classmates. They concluded that gifted students were less likely to bully
tellectual levels as compared to their peers, they also tend to present or be bullied by their peers as compared to non-gifted students. Thus,
asynchronous social and emotional development, and therefore, they from this perspective, it is suggested that gifted students have excellent
may be subjected to bullying by other students. The studies researching social skills, using effective confrontation mechanisms and presenting
bullying and cyberbullying that use samples of students with special pro-social behavior, and are suitably integrated with their peers. These
educational needs are generally very scarce. What is particularly con­ factors relate negatively to victimization and participation in bullying
cerning is the lack of research on academically gifted students. An behavior.
explanation of this lack of attention toward these students in this context Finally, a third perspective suggests that academically gifted stu­
may be due to the belief that this student group does not present specific dents engage in bullying behavior and are bullied by their classmates in
emotional or social needs, with there being a predominance of stereo­ the same proportion as their non-gifted peers. It implies that a high
types that show them as being confident, motivated, and able to face cognitive development is not related to participation in bullying
developmental challenges with ease (Conolly, 2018; Peterson, 2009). behavior or victimization (Mitchell, 2011; Peters & Bain, 2011).
This situation may lead to teachers and other adults not recognizing or The disparity of findings with respect to bullying and cyberbullying
addressing the social and emotional needs of these students. Superior in academically gifted students highlights the complexity of this issue.
academic ability does not necessarily imply adequate social skills. Some No rigorous systematic reviews currently exist to update the findings in
academically gifted students may lack social skills, which implies a this area. Therefore, the objective of this work is to bring together and
higher risk of isolation and bullying from peers (Peterson, 2009), as well update the scientific information in order to increase our understanding
as other variables such as jealousy from classmates, which may of this issue. By unifying consistent findings, a characteristic profile may
contribute to negative attitudes toward gifted students. Occasionally, be created. This may assist in determining the needs of gifted students,
the lack of knowledge that adults have about the specific characteristics helping to identify potential areas of prevention and intervention for
of academically gifted students may lead to devastating consequences, school bullying with regard to this group.
such as the suicide of an 18-year-old gifted student (Hyatt, 2010).
Although the student had mentioned to their classmates that she was 2. Methods
considering suicide, she did not feel able to confide in an adult. These
events suggest that academic giftedness does not guarantee protection 2.1. Design
from bullying and cyberbullying behavior. Woods and Wolke (2004),
using a sample of 1016 gifted students, found that gifted students were The review was carried out in line with the PRISMA (Preferred
more likely to be the subject of social exclusion by their peers as Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; Moher

2
Á. Martínez-Monteagudo et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

et al., 2009) guidelines. The criteria created for the PRISMA ensure that 3. Results
the studies included have been thoroughly reviewed. Fig. 1 presents a
flow chart with the four phases recommended by PRISMA, specifying The first study on school bullying in academically gifted students
the inclusion and exclusion process of each article. that was published in a high-impact journal was conducted by Peterson
A systematic review was carried out on scientific publications related and Ray (2006a). Since then, there has been a succession of publications,
to gifted children and bullying or cyberbullying in the scholastic envi­ although over recent years the number has only slightly increased.
ronment over the past 22 years (2000–2022). Searches were conducted Seven of the 15 articles selected used samples from the United States
in the main psychology databases: Scopus, Web of Science, and Psych (Estell et al., 2009; Peairs et al., 2019; Pelchar & Bain, 2014; Peters &
Info. The search strategy was carried out in each database, using the Bain, 2011; Peterson & Ray, 2006a; Peterson & Ray, 2006b; Ryoo et al.,
following combination of terms: “gifted*” AND “bully*” OR “cyber*” OR 2017), while three used Spanish samples (González-Cabrera, Tourón,
“victim*” OR “aggress*” OR “cybervictim*” OR “cyberaggress*” OR Machimbarrena, Gutiérrez-Ortega, et al., 2019; González-Cabrera,
“cyberbully*” OR “cyber-bullying” OR “School violence” OR “peer Tourón, Machimbarrena, León-Mejía, & Gutiérrez-Ortega, 2019; Sureda
victimization” OR “peer aggression” OR “school aggression” OR “school et al., 2020), two were conducted in Turkey (Ogurlu & Sariçam, 2018;
harassment” OR “internet harassment” OR “internet bullying” OR Sariçam & Çetinkaya, 2018), one used Brazil samples (Rondini &
“electronic bullying”. The search fields used were title, abstract and Almeida, 2022) and two, in Ireland (Conolly, 2018; Laffan et al., 2022).
keywords. Six of the studies used samples from primary and secondary educa­
First, duplicated documents were eliminated from the total number tion (González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, Gutiérrez-Ortega,
of records found in the diverse databases. Then, the titles and abstracts et al., 2019; González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, León-Mejía, &
of the documents were analyzed, excluding those articles that did not Gutiérrez-Ortega, 2019; Ogurlu & Sariçam, 2018; Peairs et al., 2019;
comply with the previously established inclusion criteria. Inclusion Rondini & Almeida, 2022; Ryoo et al., 2017); five studies used sec­
criteria were: (1) studies whose objectives (at least one) included the ondary and baccalaureate student samples (Conolly, 2018; Laffan et al.,
study of the relationship between gifted students and school bullying or 2022; Peters & Bain, 2011; Sariçam & Çetinkaya, 2018; Sureda et al.,
cyberbullying; (2) study participants included students diagnosed as 2020); two studies used primary education samples (Estell et al., 2009;
being gifted; (3) studies in the English or Spanish language; and (3) Pelchar & Bain, 2014); and two used early childhood, primary, and
scientific studies having transverse or longitudinal designs. Other article secondary student samples (Peterson & Ray, 2006a; Peterson & Ray,
types, such as reviews, theoretical articles, systematic reviews, books, or 2006b). Forteen of the 15 studies analyzed victimization and bullying
unique cases were excluded. (Estell et al., 2009; González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbarrena,
Subsequently, the 20 selected articles were read in-depth, checking Gutiérrez-Ortega, et al., 2019; González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbar­
that they met the established inclusion criteria and removing those that rena, León-Mejía, & Gutiérrez-Ortega, 2019; Laffan et al., 2022; Ogurlu
did not meet them. Finally, studies that complied with the inclusion & Sariçam, 2018; Peairs et al., 2019; Pelchar & Bain, 2014; Peters &
criteria were selected (15 articles). Bain, 2011; Peterson & Ray, 2006a; Peterson & Ray, 2006b; Rondini &
Almeida, 2022; Ryoo et al., 2017; Sariçam & Çetinkaya, 2018; Sureda

n n

n n

n
n

Fig. 1. Flow chart of selection of articles.

3
Á. Martínez-Monteagudo et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

et al., 2020), one study, by Conolly (2018), analyzed victimization Table 1

alone. Furthermore, only the study by Conolly (2018), Rondini and Summary of selected studies.
Almeida (2022) and that of Peterson and Ray (2006b) used a qualitative Authors Sample Objective Main findings
methodology.
Conolly (2018) N = 59 gifted To analyze the Students suffering
Seven of the 15 documents selected compared bullying and victim­ adolescents experience of from depression,
ization between gifted and non-gifted students (Estell et al., 2009; Age range = cyberbullying, its anger, and
Ogurlu & Sariçam, 2018; Peairs et al., 2019; Peters & Bain, 2011; Ryoo 13–17 impact, and the frustration.
et al., 2017; Sariçam & Çetinkaya, 2018; Sureda et al., 2020). The other Ireland main reason for Girls had a lower
not informing on emotional and
studies analyzed bullying with samples consisting of academically gifted victimization. academic
students. Table 1 details the socio-demographic characteristics, objec­ adjustment.
tives, and main findings of the selected studies. Table 2 below offers Reasons for not
information about the cross-sectional or longitudinal design of the denouncing were
related to self-
study, the instrument used for the evaluation of bullying and cyber­
efficacy, control,
bullying, the timeframe with which bullying and cyberbullying were perceived risks,
evaluated, the cut off for the categorization of bullying and cyberbul­ past experiences
lying, and finally, how gifted students were identified or diagnosed in when denouncing,
each of the studies. sex, and age.
Estell et al. (2009) N = 484; To analyze the Gifted students
369 general perceptions of were perceived by
3.1. Do gifted students have a higher or lower risk of being victims or education peers and teachers their peers as being
perpetrators of bullying? students; on the probability less likely to be
74 gifted of being a bully or bullied than their
students; a victim, peers having mild
Of the studies comparing gifted and non-gifted students, the research
41 students comparing gifted disabilities.
may be categorized into one of the three proposed theoretical perspec­ with mild students with Teachers perceived
tives mentioned in the introduction: (1) academically gifted students disabilities. those having mild gifted students as
having a higher risk of being victims than non-gifted students and a Age range = disabilities and being less likely to
10–11 those with no be victims or
lower risk of being a bully; (2) academically gifted students having a
USA problematics. bullies.
lower risk of being a bully or victim than non-gifted students; and (3) González-Cabrera, N = 255 gifted To analyze 25.1 % of the
academically gifted students having similar risks of being a bully or Tourón, adolescents. prevalence, its students classified
victim as non-gifted students. Machimbarrena, Age range = distribution in themselves as pure
As for the first perspective, suggesting that gifted students have a Gutiérrez-Ortega, 9–18 distinct roles and cybervictims, 3.9
et al. (2019) Spain consequences. % as pure
higher risk of being a victim of bullying due to certain characteristics of
cyberbullies, and
this group (perfectionism, sensitivity, asynchronous development, high 6.6 % as
awareness of moral and ethical issues, strong sense of individuality, cybervictims-
motivation, early development of the internal locus of control, passion cyberbullies.
for learning or outstanding academic performance), two of the analyzed The group
classified as
studies (Ogurlu & Sariçam, 2018; Sariçam & Çetinkaya, 2018) consid­ cybervictims and
ered this perspective. Sariçam and Çetinkaya (2018) found that gifted as cybervictims-
students had significantly higher means on victimization (M = 70.38; cyberbullies had
SD = 25.43) than non-gifted students (M = 62.84; SD = 24.92) and lower scores on
quality of life with
significantly lower means on aggression (M = 55.23; SD = 22.06) than
regard to health,
non-gifted students (M = 62.08; SD = 23.56). Furthermore, gifted stu­ depression,
dents had significantly higher means on the revenge variable (M = satisfaction with
77.13; SD = 24.77) than non-gifted students (M = 70.09; SD = 28.57). life and stress than
The authors used a sample of 318 Turkish students (159 gifted) in sec­ those that were not
involved.
ondary education. Along the same lines, Ogurlu and Sariçam (2018), González-Cabrera, N = 285 gifted To analyze 50.9 % were
using a sample of 284 Turkish adolescents (142 identified as gifted), Tourón, students. prevalence, its involved in
found statistically significant differences on victimization and bullying Machimbarrena, Age range = distribution in bullying behavior,
behavior between students who were and were not gifted. Gifted stu­ León-Mejía, and 9–18 distinct roles and with 39.6 % being
Gutiérrez-Ortega Spain consequences. victims, 1.1 %
dents obtained lower means on perpetration of bullying (M = 83.83)
(2019) being bullies, and
than non-gifted students (M = 94.15). However, the mean for victimi­ 10.2 % being
zation for gifted students was significantly higher (M = 106.06) than the victims-bullies.
mean obtained by non-gifted students (M = 95.75). Moreover, it was Victims and
found that gifted students had lower means on submissive behavior than victims-bullies had
lower scores on
non-gifted students, although these differences were not statistically quality of life with
significant. It was also found that gifted students had higher means on regard to health,
the ability to forgive variable than non-gifted students, with these dif­ depression, stress,
ferences being statistically significant. As for differences based on sex, and anxiety than
those that were not
gifted boys were found to have much higher bullying levels than girls,
involved.
however, the girls had much higher means for victimization than the Laffan et al. (2022) N = 195 gifted To analyze the 55.4 % had been
boys. students; prevalence rates of victims of bullying
The second perspective is found in studies in which academically Age range = bullying and at some point in
gifted students are at a lower risk of engaging in bullying behavior or 14–18 cyberbullying. their lives.
Ireland 31.3 % had been
being victimized due to their higher cognitive level, which helps them to victims of
effectively confront social and emotional challenges, thereby contrib­ cyberbullying at
uting to their lower degree of participation in bullying or victimization (continued on next page)
behavior. Along these lines, the results of two selected studies are

4
Á. Martínez-Monteagudo et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

Table 1 (continued ) Table 1 (continued )

Authors Sample Objective Main findings Authors Sample Objective Main findings

some point in their As the level of a

lives. child’s
Bullying in the last participation as a
3 months: no- bully increased,
involvement (67.7 their exteriorized
%), victim only distress also
(27.2 %), bully increased, and as
only (3.1 %), and the level of
bully/victims (2.1 victimization
%). increased, the
Cyberbullying in child’s exteriorized
the last 3 months: and interiorized
no-involvement distress also
(71.8 %), victim increased.
only (18.5 %), Peters and Bain N = 90 To compare the The prevalence of
bully only (4.1 %) (2011) students; prevalence of bullying and
and bully/victim 47 gifted; bullying and victimization was
(5.6 %). 43 high victimization not significantly
Higher figures academic between students different between
compared to an all- achievement; identified as gifted students diagnosed
Ireland national Age range = and those with as gifted and those
prevalence rate. 14–18 high academic with high
Ogurlu and Sariçam N = 284 To compare Gifted students USA performance. academic
(2018) 142 gifted bullying, the obtained lower performance.
students ability to forgive, means on bullying No statistically
142 non- and submissive perpetration than significant
gifted behavior amongst non-gifted differences were
students gifted and non- students. found with regard
Age range = gifted students. Gifted students to sex.
11–14 obtained higher Peterson and Ray N = 432 gifted To analyze the 67 % of the
Turkey means on (2006a) students. prevalence and students had been
victimization than Age range = consequences of bullied at some
non-gifted ones. 4–14 being a bully or a time during their
Gifted students had USA victim from early education. The
higher means on childhood lowest prevalence
the ability to education to 8th was found for Early
forgive variable grade (2nd year of Childhood
than non-gifted Mandatory Second Education while
students. Education). the highest was in
Boys had higher Retrospective 6th grade (11–12
means on bullying study years of age).
than girls and girls 28 % reported
had higher means having bullied
on victimization as other peers at some
compared to boys. time during their
Peairs et al. (2019) N = 327; To compare the Gifted students education. The
141 gifted socio-metric status were perceived as highest prevalence
students; (social preference being less was in 6th grade.
186 non- and perception of aggressive and The greatest
gifted popularity) and more prosocial and emotional damage
students. the adjustment had higher was found to take
Age range = between gifted academic place during 5th
11–14 and non-gifted performance than grade (10–11
USA students. students who were years), decreasing
not gifted. in 6th grade
Gifted students (11–12 years).
were perceived as Peterson and Ray N = 57 gifted To analyze the Victims suffered
experiencing (2006b) students. experience of from bullying in
similar levels of Age range = being a bullying silence, attempting
victimization as 4–14 victim or to understand it,
nonidentified USA perpetrator. assuming
students. responsibility for
Pelchar and Bain N = 47 gifted To identify the The 4th graders detaining it,
(2014) students. prevalence of (9–10 years of age) becoming
Age range = bullying and had significantly desperate when it
9–11 victimization of higher means than continued and
USA gifted students the 5th graders having violent
that were in (10–11-year-olds) thoughts. Their
transition from on perpetration of intelligence helped
primary to bullying. No them to be aware
secondary school. significant of the bullying.
Also, to analyze differences were Many students
the levels of found between the believed that not
distress associated prevalence of being known
with bullying and victimization by contributed to
victimization. grade or sex. school bullying.
(continued on next page)

5
Á. Martínez-Monteagudo et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

Table 1 (continued ) (social preference and perception of popularity) and adjustment of 327
Authors Sample Objective Main findings students aged 11 to 14. Of these, 141 were identified as gifted and 186
were considered non-gifted. It was found that gifted students were
Helping them to be
socially adjusted,
perceived as less aggressive (overt and relational) and more prosocial
especially during than non-gifted students, indicating that gifted students, as a group,
the first years of were perceived as experiencing similar levels of victimization as non­
secondary school, identified students. Moreover, it was found that when gifted students
may be critical to
were aggressive, they displayed this behavior in a more relational than
their wellbeing
and so that they direct way, showing that they used their outstanding cognitive skills to
feel safe in the carry out such relational aggressions.
school. Finally, the results of three of the studies support the third proposed
Rondini and N = 10 gifted To analyze Characteristics and perspective, that is, the one that considers that gifted students engage in
Almeida (2022) students; whether gifted beliefs do not seem
Age range = students were to influence a
bullying and are intimidated by their peers in the same proportion as
10–15 bullied for being higher degree of other non-gifted students (Peters & Bain, 2011; Ryoo et al., 2017; Sureda
Brazil considered victimization and et al., 2020). Peters and Bain (2011) compared the prevalence of
different and perpetuation of victimization and bullying obtained for 90 secondary school students
whether the bullying in gifted
(14 to 18 years of age) who were identified as having high academic
beliefs about being students.
gifted could lead performance (n = 43) and students identified as gifted (n = 47). The
to violent actions. authors did not find statistically significant differences between these
Ryoo et al. (2017) N = 988; To use a There was no groups with regard to the prevalence of victimization or bullying.
299 gifted longitudinal study difference between However, the prevalence of victimization was higher than that of
students; (from 5th to 9th the experiences of
689 non- grade; 3 wave) to victimization
intimidation. In the sample of gifted students, 4.3 % were classified as
gifted examine the between the gifted bullies and 12.8 % as victims, whereas in the high academic perfor­
students. experiences of students and the mance sample, 4.7 % of these students were classified as bullies and 16
Age range = victimization and non-gifted ones. % as victims. Similarly, no differences were found between boys and
10–15 bullying in gifted Gifted students
girls with respect to the prevalence of victimization or bullying. The
USA and non-gifted identified as
students. frequent victims in study attempted to compare students diagnosed as gifted with those
primary education sharing a similar academic environment (high academic performance),
were more likely to but who had not been identified as gifted, and were not considered to
be bullies have special needs based on an academic diagnosis. Both groups of
themselves in
students had considerable academic achievements, however, the gifted
secondary
education (time 1 – students had been labeled as such and received specialized services due
time 3). to their diagnosis. Ryoo et al. (2017) considered a sample of 299 gifted
Sariçam and N = 318; To analyze the Gifted students had students and 689 students from the general population, with a mean age
Çetinkaya (2018) 159 gifted relationship significantly
of 12.2 years, examining the victimization and bullying experiences of
students; between bullying, higher means on
159 non- victimization, and victimization and both groups in a longitudinal study (from 5th to 9th grade). The re­
gifted revenge. revenge and searchers identified four latent classes of victimization: 4.8 %–5.2 %,
students. significantly lower frequent victims; 7.4 %–12.2 %, frequent victims of relational bullying;
Secondary means on 28.7 %–35.8 %, occasional victims; 46.8 %–59.2 %, infrequent victims;
education aggression than
and three latent classes for the perpetration of bullying: 3.9 %–5.6 %,
Turkey non-gifted
students. frequent bullies; 22.2 %–29.7 %, frequent relational bullies; 66.4 %–
Sureda et al. (2020) N = 122; To analyze No significant 72.2 %, infrequent bullies. No differences were found for victimization
61 gifted differences differences were between both groups; however, there were statistically significant dif­
students; between gifted found between
ferences in the prevalence rates of aggression in both groups, and in the
61 non-gifted and non-gifted students who were
students. students with or were not gifted
transition patterns between academic school years. Therefore, between
Age range = regard to in terms of the 2.6 % and 5.9 % of the non-gifted students and between 2.7 and 6.9 % of
13–17 cyberbullying (as incidence of the gifted students were identified as being frequent bullies, between
Spain bully or victim) cyberbullying and 20.1 % and 30.7 % of the non-gifted students and between 20 % and
and to Internet addiction to the
28.7 % of the gifted students were identified as frequent relational
addiction. Internet.
bullies; between 66.8 % and 74 % of the non-gifted students and be­
tween 67.8 % and 73.2 % of the gifted students were identified in the
relevant (Estell et al., 2009; Peairs et al., 2019). Estell et al. (2009) infrequent bully group. Likewise, it was found that gifted students
analyzed the perceptions of students and teachers on the probability of identified as frequent victims in primary education were more likely to
being a bully or a victim, with regard to gifted students, students with be bullies during secondary education. Sureda et al. (2020) analyzed
mild disabilities, and students from the general population. The re­ whether or not there were differences between gifted and non-gifted
searchers used a sample of 484 students aged 10 to 11 (74 students with students with regard to cyberbullying and Internet addiction. The
mild disabilities and 74 gifted students). They concluded that peers study was carried out using a sample of 122 Spanish adolescents aged 13
perceived gifted students as being less likely to be bullied than students to 17, with half of these being considered gifted (n = 61). The authors
with mild disabilities. Along the same line, teachers also perceived gifted did not find statistically significant differences between both groups of
students as being less likely to be victims or bullies, as compared to students.
students with mild disabilities or the other students. Similarly, class­ Of the works that did not carry out comparative studies between
mates nominated gifted students as being the most loved of the class, as gifted and non-gifted students, it is not possible to determine which of
compared to the students with mild disabilities or the other students. the three proposed perspectives would be confirmed (Conolly, 2018;
Therefore, they concluded that gifted students intimidate others and are González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, Gutiérrez-Ortega, et al.,
less intimidated than their non-gifted peers. Similar results were found 2019; González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, León-Mejía, &
by Peairs et al. (2019). These authors compared the socio-metric status Gutiérrez-Ortega, 2019; Pelchar & Bain, 2014; Peterson & Ray, 2006a;

6
Á. Martínez-Monteagudo et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

Table 2
Summary of selected studies (continued).
Authors Design Instrument to assess Timeframe Cut off Gifted identification
bullying or cyberbullying

Conolly (2018) Cross- Interviews – – Centre for Talented Youth–Ireland

sectional (CTYI). Summer course.
Estell et al. (2009) Cross- Survey – – Students who were in the top 15 % of
sectional their class in achievement were
considered academically gifted.
González-Cabrera, Tourón, Cross- Cyberbullying Screening of – Occasional cybervictims, Official diagnosis of giftedness;
Machimbarrena, sectional Peer Harassment cyberaggressors, or cyberbystanders: belonging to one of the associations of
Gutiérrez-Ortega, et al. (Garaigordobil, 2013). those who suffered, performed, or giftedness officially registered in Spain.
(2019) observed any cyberbullying behavior
“sometimes”.
Severe: those who suffered,
performed, or observed
cyberbullying behavior from “fairly
often” to “always.”
González-Cabrera, Tourón, Cross- European Bullying Past 7 months Victim: scores of 2 or above on any of Spanish associations related to students
Machimbarrena, León- sectional Intervention Project the victimization items. with high abilities.
Mejía, and Gutiérrez- Questionnaire (EBIP-Q; Aggressor: scores of 2 or higher on IQ of 130 or above or, in some cases,
Ortega (2019) Ortega, Del Rey, y Casas, any of the aggression items. being at the 75th percentile or above on
2016). Aggressor-victim: scores of 2 or a battery of differential aptitudes of
higher on at least one item of the intelligence (commonly the BADYG,
aggression or victimization scales. Yuste, 1989); belonging to one of the
officially registered associations of high
abilities in Spain.
Laffan et al. (2022) Cross- Olweus Bully/Victim Some point in – Recruited through their admittance to
sectional Questionnaire (OBVQ) their lives and in the Centre for Talented Youth Ireland
(Olweus, 1996) the past 3 (CTYI). Prospective gifted CTYI students
Cyberbullying and Online months met the CTYI Talent Search criteria in
Aggression Survey order to take the School and College
Instrument (COAS; Patchin Aptitude Test for giftedness, which
& Hinduja, 2015) involves: (1) outstanding demonstrable
aptitude in either mathematical and/or
verbal reasoning, and (2) a previous
standardized aptitude score within the
95th percentile or above on a
standardized aptitude assessment such
as the Drumcondra Reasoning Test
Ogurlu and Sariçam (2018) Cross- Peer Bullying Scale-Child – – Gifted students were attending the
sectional Form (Pişkin and Ayas Science and Art Center (BILSEM).
2011). BILSEM is a state-funded after-school
program providing special education for
gifted students. Gifted students in these
centers attend both their normal schools
and the centers after their schools.
Peairs et al. (2019) Cross- Social Behaviors. Students North Carolina state guidelines, which
sectional in the study were asked to require students to “exhibit high
make unlimited performance capability in intellectual
nominations of peers. areas, specific academic fields, or in
Four social behaviors: both intellectual areas and specific
aggression, academic fields” (Stephens & Karnes,
relational aggression, 2000, p. 232).
prosocial behavior, and Scores on an aptitude test, achievement
victimization. tests in math and reading, grades, and
teacher checklists.
Pelchar and Bain (2014) Cross- Reynolds Bully During the past – All participants received special
sectional Victimization Scale (BVS; month education services for giftedness. Two
Reynolds, 2003). conditions to receive such services:
1. They had to meet specific criteria as
outlined in a matrix based on three
areas: educational performance,
creativity, and cognition.
2. Students had to demonstrate a need
for special education services.
Peters and Bain (2011) Cross- Reynolds Bully During the past Bullying scores: Gifted students in this study were
sectional Victimization Scale for month Below 57: normal range. identified based on state guidelines that
Schools (BVS; Reynolds, Scores of 58–65: clinically delineated educational performance,
2003). significant. Scores 66–74: Moderate. creativity, and cognitive criteria
Scores >75: severe. (Tennessee Department of Education,
Victimization scale: 2007).
Scores of 55 and below: normal
range.
Scores of 56–63: Clinically
significant.
Scores of 64–68: Moderate.
(continued on next page)

7
Á. Martínez-Monteagudo et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

Table 2 (continued )
Authors Design Instrument to assess Timeframe Cut off Gifted identification
bullying or cyberbullying

Scores >69: severe.

Bully-victims:
Clinically significant scores on both
scales (bully and victims).
Peterson and Ray (2006a) Cross- Structured interview At some point – Identified to carry out a school program
sectional during their for gifted pupils (regardless of the
school years characteristics of the program).
Peterson and Ray (2006b) Cross- Structured interview – – Identified to carry out a school program
sectional for gifted pupils (regardless of the
characteristics of the program).
Rondini & Almeida (2022) Cross- Semi-structured interview Some point in – Centers for the Development of
sectional their lives Potential and Talent (CEDET). If a
student is identified in two or more
grades, they are invited to join CEDET
(Centers for the Development of
Potential and Talent), for curriculum
enrichment activities.
Domains of human capacity, whether
combined or isolated: signals of general
intelligence (G Domain); intelligence
with depth and non-linear thinking (GM
Domain); intelligence with verbal
capacity (GV Domain); creativity and
creative potential (C Domain); and
socio-affective capacity (S Domain).
Ryoo et al. (2017) Longitudinal Pacific-Rim Past 2 months – Standardized achievement scores in the
Bullying Measure (Konishi ninth stanine and IQ score of 130. Gifted
et al., 2009). students in this study spent most of their
time in general education classrooms.
Sariçam and Çetinkaya Cross- Peer Bullying Scale Child – – Gifted/talented students were attending
(2018) sectional Form the Science and Art Centre (BILSEM)
(Pişkin and Ayas, 2011). where there are places in which students
who have an IQ score above 130 and
high level of performance in leadership,
intelligence capacity, creativity, art, or
specific academic areas than their peers
are educated outside the school time
(Special Education Legislation, 2012).
Sureda et al. (2020) Cross- Adaptation of the – – Students identified by the education
sectional Cyberbullying administration as gifted. Protocol
Questionnaire (CBQ; related questions pertaining to
Calvete et al., 2010). creativity, social and emotional
development, motivation, academic
performance, and intellectual ability,
besides confirming an IQ higher than or
equal to 130.

Peterson & Ray, 2006b). However, these studies suggest very negative victimization was found, it was also the peak year for the perpetration of
prevalences and consequences in this student group, suggesting support bullying by these students. Therefore, 46 % of the students bullied their
of the first perspective, the one that places gifted students at a higher risk peers in 6th grade (54 % boys and 12 % girls). Once again, insulting was
of suffering from bullying. Peterson and Ray (2006a), using an extensive the most common type of intimidation used (35 %) followed by mocking
sample of 432 gifted students attending 16 school districts from eleven of appearance (24 %). Gifted students also revealed that differences in
US states, retrospectively analyzed victimization and bullying experi­ intellectual ability, as compared to their peers, may have contributed to
ences of these students from early childhood education until 8th grade their being more vulnerable to bullying in school. On the other hand, the
(13–14 years of age). They found that 67 % of the students had been authors assessed the emotional impact of bullying, finding that greater
bullied at some point during their education. The prevalence of emotional harm occurred in the 5th grade, subsequently decreasing.
victimization was lower during Early Childhood Education (27 %), Therefore, although 6th graders revealed a higher prevalence of
reaching its maximum prevalence in 6th grade (54 %). For boys, the bullying, they suffered a lower emotional impact. Likewise, the authors
prevalence of bullying reached its peak in 6th grade (54 %), decreasing interviewed 57 gifted students, verifying that, in general, students did
slightly by 8th grade (46 %). For girls, the prevalence remained constant not report victimization, assuming the responsibility to detain the
between 5th and 8th grade (38 %–39 %). Insults were the most common bullying themselves (Peterson & Ray, 2006b).
type of intimidation used during all of the academic years, followed by Pelchar and Bain (2014) found that 4th graders had significantly
the mocking of appearance, intelligence, and grades, and pushing and higher means on engaging in bullying than 5th graders. The study was
shoving. Physical bullying (pushing and shoving, beating, hits, punches) carried out using a sample of 47 gifted students. On the other hand, no
was infrequent, but was a relevant problem for some 6th and 8th-grade statistically significant differences were found between boys and girls on
students. On the other hand, these students also reported on their victimization or bullying, in either of the examined years. Finally, they
participation in bullying behavior during these nine years of their edu­ analyzed the relationship between distress (anguish) and bullying,
cation. A total of 28 % (33 % boys and 22 % girls) stated that they had finding that as the child’s level of participation as a bully increased, their
bullied other classmates. Between 14 % and 16 % were bullies between exteriorized distress also increased. They also found a high correlation
6th and 8th grade. Just as 6th grade was the year in which the peak of between victimization and exteriorized or interiorized distress.

8
Á. Martínez-Monteagudo et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

Conolly (2018) interviewed 59 gifted Irish adolescents aged 13 to 17. of studies affirmed that gifted students had a lower risk of being a bully
The objective of the interviews was to obtain information on their or a victim as compared to non-gifted students, since their high cognitive
cyberbullying experiences, the impact of the same, and the main reasons level allowed them to effectively take on social and emotional chal­
for not reporting the victimization to adults (including teachers). Con­ lenges, thereby leading to a lower level of participation in bullying or
olly (2018) concluded that the consequences of cyberbullying in these victimization behavior (Estell et al., 2009; Peairs et al., 2019). Finally, a
students were especially serious and long-lasting. Students referred to third research perspective concluded that gifted students have a similar
depression, anger, and frustration, with boys and girls experiencing risk of being a bully or a victim as non-gifted students (Peters & Bain,
similar emotions. However, it was found that the emotional and aca­ 2011; Ryoo et al., 2017; Sureda et al., 2020). The classification of these
demic impact was more pronounced in girls, who had poorer academic studies has been carried out by only considering works that compared
performance, a higher level of school absenteeism, and a lower class samples of gifted and non-gifted students. Based on this classification,
participation rate. The main reasons for not reporting the cyberbullying studies in the third group predominate, that is, those in which it is
behavior were related to self-efficacy, control, perceived risks, past concluded that gifted students have a similar risk of being a victim and
reporting experiences, sex, and age. bully, with three studies corroborating these results, in contrast to the
González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, León-Mejía, and first and second group, which had only two studies supporting them. The
Gutiérrez-Ortega (2019) analyzed school bullying using a sample of 285 scarcity of relevant studies prevents us from clearly confirming the
gifted adolescents. They found that 50.9 % of these students were predominance of this perspective as compared to the others. And even
involved in distinct bullying roles: 39.6 % as victim, 1.1 % as bully and more so given that in seven studies, comparisons were not made be­
10.2 % as victim-bully. Similarly, they corroborated a more negative tween gifted and non-gifted students, and indicated a high prevalence of
impact on psychological wellbeing in the victim and victim-bully group, bullying with very negative consequences in gifted students. Thus it may
having a poorer quality of life, stress, anxiety, and depression. In par­ be concluded that these studies are more in line with the first perspective
allel, González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, Gutiérrez-Ortega, (greater risk of being victimized and lower risk of being a bully) (Con­
et al. (2019) identified different profiles of participation in bullying in olly, 2018; González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, Gutiérrez-
255 gifted Spanish adolescents. The results indicated that 25.1 % of the Ortega, et al., 2019; González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, León-
students classified themselves as pure cybervictims, 3.9 % as pure Mejía, & Gutiérrez-Ortega, 2019; Laffan et al., 2022; Pelchar & Bain,
cyberbullies, and 6.6 % as cybervictims-cyberbullies. The group classi­ 2014; Peterson & Ray, 2006a; Peterson & Ray, 2006b). Therefore, given
fied as cybervictims and cybervictims-cyberbullies had lower scores on the empirical research available, it is clearly necessary to further
quality of life with regard to health, depression, satisfaction with life, examine the relationship between school bullying and this student
and stress, as compared to those that were not involved. The authors group. This disparity of results may be due to distinct factors: (a) lack of
concluded that gifted students had higher rates of cybervictimization unanimity amongst the scientific community regarding the definition of
and lower rates of cyberbullying than those observed in other studies the term gifted and the diversity of theoretical frameworks explaining
using a general population sample. this gifted group; (b) the variety of geographical and social contexts with
Using semi-structured interviews, Rondini and Almeida (2022), their respective socio-cultural realities and distinct educational systems;
analyzed whether gifted students were bullied for being considered (c) the age of the sample considered; (d) measurement instruments.
different and whether the beliefs about giftedness led to violent actions These and other factors may hinder the comparison of results, and the
against these students. The authors used a sample of 10 Brazilian stu­ findings of the analyzed studies should be interpreted with caution.
dents (5 girls and 5 boys) aged 10 to 15. The authors concluded that On the other hand, the studies analyzed the prevalence rates of
characteristics and beliefs did not seem to influence the higher degree of school bullying and cyberbullying in gifted students (González-Cabrera,
victimization and bullying experienced by gifted students. Tourón, Machimbarrena, Gutiérrez-Ortega, et al., 2019; González-Cab­
Using a sample of 195 gifted Irish adolescents aged 14–18, Laffan rera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, León-Mejía, & Gutiérrez-Ortega, 2019;
et al. (2022) analyzed the prevalence of school bullying and cyberbul­ Laffan et al., 2022; Peterson & Ray, 2006a) with higher prevalence rates
lying. They found that 55.4 % and 31.3 % of gifted students had expe­ than those typically found in reviews considering the general population
rienced bullying and cyberbullying, respectively, at some point in their (Hymel & Swearer, 2015; Monks et al., 2009; Stassen-Berger, 2007).
lives. The frequency of traditional bullying in the last 3 months was as This suggests the trend for gifted students to suffer from more bullying
follows: no-involvement (67.7 %), victim only (27.2 %), bully only (3.1 due to their unique characteristics. However, these results should also be
%), and bully/victims (2.1 %). Cyberbullying involvement frequencies subject to a more in-depth analysis.
in the 3-month school period were reported as follows: no-involvement Therefore, although this systematic review does not allow us to
(71.8 %), victim only (18.5 %), bully only (4.1 %) and bully/victim (5.6 definitively conclude that bullying or cyberbullying is more prevalent in
%). The authors concluded that these figures were considerably higher gifted students and that this condition is not inexorably related to
than compared to an all-Ireland national prevalence rate. suffering greater levels of victimization, we can recommend that the
education community include preventive elements and specific in­
4. Discussion terventions for this group. As such, in response to the prevalences found
in the present review, we suggest the need to reinforce coexistence
This study presents a systematic review of school bullying and strategies that prevent or mitigate bullying or cyberbullying in this
cyberbullying in gifted students. The objective was to systematically specific group of students. Moreover, the analysis of the different studies
analyze the empirical research existing on the relationship between has outlined the negative consequences of bullying and cyberbullying
school bullying and cyberbullying in samples of gifted students, in order for these students (anxiety, depression, stress, rage, frustration) (Con­
to offer more understanding of this group. Based on the results obtained olly, 2018; González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, Gutiérrez-
(15 studies included in the review) it is possible to distinguish between Ortega, et al., 2019; González-Cabrera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, León-
three research groups. The first research group concluded that gifted Mejía, & Gutiérrez-Ortega, 2019; Pelchar & Bain, 2014), which re­
students were at a greater risk of being a victim, as compared to non- inforces the need for prevention and intervention activities, for example,
gifted students, and had a lower risk of being a bully, given the char­ providing an adult or peer mentor for gifted students can help reduce
acteristics of this group (perfectionism, sensitivity, asynchronous their anxiety (Benson, 2009), and grouping gifted students throughout
development, high awareness of moral and ethical issues, strong sense of the school day can help reduce feelings of social isolation or low self-
individualism, motivation, early development of the internal locus of esteem (Bar-On, 2007). Moreover, in light of the results, it is neces­
control, passion for learning, or outstanding academic performance) sary to reflect on those studies that have corroborated that gifted stu­
(Ogurlu & Sariçam, 2018; Sariçam & Çetinkaya, 2018). A second group dents present a lower risk of displaying bullying or victimization

9
Á. Martínez-Monteagudo et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

behaviors because their high cognitive level helps them to cope effec­ assessing student perceptions. Finally, given the diversity of the
tively with social and emotional challenges, thus contributing to a lower geographic and cultural contexts of the studies analyzed, the results
degree of involvement in bullying or victimization (Estell et al., 2009; should be interpreted with caution. Despite these limitations, this work
Peairs et al., 2019). Perhaps the contradictory results found in the offers a greater understanding of school bullying and cyberbullying in
different studies call for a deeper analysis of the variables that help in gifted students, collecting empirical evidence on this issue. To date, no
understanding why some gifted students suffer and carry out bullying other similar systematic review is available; therefore, it may be
and cyberbullying behaviors and why others do not seem to be more considered the basis for further scientific study in this area.
exposed to this problem. It is possible that the different degrees of social
and emotional skills in this group of students are the reason for these Funding
differences, thus making it necessary for the development of these skills
to be addressed (Peairs et al., 2019). Teachers should consider the This research was financed by the Ministry of Science and Innova­
vulnerability and unique characteristics of gifted students and should tion, the Agency and the European Regional Development Fund (Proyect
help them to develop socio-emotional and problem-solving skills to PID123118NA-100 funded by MCIN /AEI /10.13039/501100011033 /
confront the victimization of their peers. Casino-García et al. (2019) FEDER, UE).
emphasized the importance of developing emotional intelligence
(recognizing and being able to express feelings or handle emotions) in
this group. Other aspects that can be developed, such as problem reso­ Declaration of competing interest
lution, self-concept, coping strategies, or social skills, may also help in
the managing of stressful classroom situations. Therefore, in the school The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
environment, it is necessary to go beyond the strictly cognitive assess­ interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
ment of gifted students. It is also necessary to consider the affective and the work reported in this paper.
social dimensions of these students.
Furthermore, even those studies that did not find a higher level of Data availability
bullying with these students indicate that they are not immune to
victimization. Therefore, other contextual aspects should also be No data was used for the research described in the article.
considered (school environment, belonging to the group, etc.) which
may protect gifted and non-gifted students. Some studies concluded that References
the experiences of these gifted students depend on the social environ­
ment of the classroom, including how they are valued and treated by Alvino, J. (1991). An investigation into the needs of gifted boys. Roeper Review, 13(4),
174–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199109553352
teachers and peers (Cross, 2001; Peterson & Ray, 2006b). Thus, in light Bain, S. K., & Bell, S. M. (2004). Social self-concept, social attributions, and peer
of the analysis carried out in this present study, another aspect to relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who are gifted compared to high
consider is the type of bullying that these students generally experience. achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001698620404800302
Insults that refer to their intelligence, teasing about their appearance, or Bar-On, R. (2007). The impact of emotional intelligence on giftedness. Gifted Education
about their academic qualifications (Peterson & Ray, 2006a; Peterson & International, 23(2), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940702300203
Ray, 2006b) show the need to create a positive scholastic environment Benson, M. (2009). Gifted middle school students transitioning to high school: How one
teacher helped his students feel less anxious. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 29–33.
that accepts individual differences of students, including high cognitive https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2009-876
skills and others that are characteristic of gifted students (perfectionism, Bergmann, M. C., & Baier, D. (2018). Prevalence and correlates of cyberbullying
interests, academic performance, etc.) (Peterson & Ray, 2006b; Ryoo perpetration. Findings from a German representative student survey. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(2), 274. https://doi.org/
et al., 2017). Therefore, teachers should attempt to create an environ­
10.3390/ijerph15020274
ment that positively values high academic performance. Likewise, it is Cañas, E., Estévez, E., Martínez-Monteagudo, M. C., & Delgado, B. (2020). Emotional
relevant to widen the training of teachers to ensure the early identifi­ adjustment in victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying and traditional bullying.
Social Psychology of Education, 23, 917–942.
cation of bullying indicators and provide them with resources to avoid
Carrera, M. V., Fernández, M. L., Castro, Y. R., Failde, J. M., & Otero, M. C. (2013).
conflicts as they arise. In addition, some of the research analyzed in this Bullying in Spanish secondary schools: Gender-based differences. Spanish Journal of
review shows that these students are often reluctant to report bullying Psychology, 16, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.37
and do not inform parents or teachers (Conolly, 2018; González-Cab­ Carter, B. B., & Spencer, V. G. (2006). The fear factor: Bullying and students with
disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 11–23.
rera, Tourón, Machimbarrena, León-Mejía, & Gutiérrez-Ortega, 2019; Casino-García, A. M., García-Pérez, J., & Llinares, I. (2019). Subjective emotional well-
Peterson & Ray, 2006b). Ensuring a school climate in which they feel being, emotional intelligence, and mood of gifted vs. unidentified students: A
protected and trust authority figures to report bullying can also be key. relationship mode. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
16, 3266. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183266
Therefore, it is believed to be necessary for the educational community Christopher, M. M., & Shewmaker, J. (2010). The relationship of perfectionism to
to include school bullying prevention elements and programs to improve affective variables in gifted and highly able children. Gifted Child Today, 33(3),
attitudes toward gifted students, promoting the development of 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621751003300307
Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
empathy and prosocial behavior in the scholastic environment. Cohen, R., Duncan, M., & Cohen, S. (1994). Classroom peer relations of children
This study has its limitations. First, the established exclusion criteria participating in a pull-out enrichment program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 33–38.
may have biased the results obtained. However, it should be noted that https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800105
Conolly, J. P. (2018). Exploring the factors influencing gifted adolescents’ resistance to
the development of a protocol and specific inclusion and exclusion
report experiences of cyberbullying behavior: Toward an improved understanding.
criteria has increased the solidity of the research. On the other hand, the Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(2), 136–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/
search in a limited number of databases specializing in psychology and 0162353218763869
Cross, T. L. (2001). The many faces of bullies. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 36–37.
education may have excluded results from other disciplines that would
Dalosto, M. D. M., & Alençar, E. M. (2013). Manifestações e prevalencia de bullying entre
have offered robustness to the study. Moreover, the distinct experi­ alunos com altas habilidades/superdotação. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial,
mental designs used in the different studies hinder the comparison of 19(3), 363–378.
results. The distinct conceptualizations of being gifted, as well as of Delgado, B., Martínez-Monteagudo, M. C., Ruíz-Esteban, C., & Rubio, E. (2019). Latent
class analysis of school refusal behavior and its relationship with cyberbullying
school bullying and cyberbullying and its assessment prevent the during adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1916. https://doi.org/10.3389/
rigorous contrasting of the studies. Similarly, most of the studies fpsyg.2019.01916
analyzed are transversal in nature, preventing the determination of a Erwin, J. (2015). Prevalence and impact of peer victimization among gifted adolescents
(Doctoral Dissertation). Berkeley, United States: University of California.
cause-effect between being gifted and bullying. It should also be noted Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., Irvin, M. J., Crowther, A., Akos, P., & Boudah, D. J. (2009).
that few multi-reporting studies were available, with most works only Students with exceptionalities and the peer group context of bullying and

10
Á. Martínez-Monteagudo et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

victimization in late elementary school. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(2), Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2003). Tackling bullying: Listening to the views of children and
136–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9214-1 young people (Research Report No. 400). London: Department for Education and
Flynt, S. W., & Morton, R. C. (2007). Bullying prevention and students with disabilities. Skills.
National Forum of Special Education Journal, 19(1), 1–6. Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges.
Fornia, G. L., & Frame, M. W. (2001). The social and emotional needs of gifted children: Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
Implications for family counseling. The Family Journal, 9(4), 384–390. https://doi. clinpsy-050212-185516
org/10.1177/1066480701094005 Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Preventing and responding to cyberbullying: Expert
Francis, R., Hawes, D. J., & Abbott, M. (2016). Intellectual giftedness and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Routledge.
psychopathology in children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Peairs, K. F., Putallaz, M., & Costanzo, P. R. (2019). From a (aggression) to v
Exceptional Children, 82, 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598779 (victimization): Peer status and adjustment among academically gifted students in
Garaigordobil, M., & Aliri, J. (2013). Ciberacoso (cyberbullying) en el País Vasco: early adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/
diferencias de sexo en víctimas, agresores y observadores. Behavioral Psychology, 21 0016986219838973
(3), 461–474. Pelchar, T. K., & Bain, S. K. (2014). Bullying and victimization among gifted children in
González-Cabrera, J., Machimbarrena, J. M., Ortega-Barón, J., & Álvarez-Bardón, A. school-level transitions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 319–336. https://
(2019). Joint association of bullying and cyberbullying in health-related quality of doi.org/10.1177/0162353214552566
life in a sample of adolescents. Quality of Life Research, 29, 941–952. https://doi.org/ Peters, M. P., & Bain, S. K. (2011). Bullying and victimization rates among gifted and
10.1007/s11136-019-02353-z high achieving students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 624–643. https://
González-Cabrera, J., Tourón, J., Machimbarrena, J. M., Gutiérrez-Ortega, M., León- doi.org/10.1177/016235321103400405
Mejía, A., Álvarez-Bardón, A., & Garaigordobil, M. (2019). Cyberbullying in gifted Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social
students: Prevalence and psychological well-being in a Spanish sample. International and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 280–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 2173. https://doi.org/ 0016986209346946
10.3390/ijerph16122173 Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006a). Bullying and the gifted: Victims, perpetrators,
González-Cabrera, J., Tourón, J., Machimbarrena, J. M., León-Mejía, A., & Gutiérrez- prevalence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 148–168. https://doi.org/
Ortega, M. (2019). Estudio exploratorio sobre acoso escolar en alumnado con altas 10.1177/001698620605000206
capacidades: prevalencia y afectación psicológica. Revista de Educación, 386, Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006b). Bullying among the gifted: The subjective
187–214. experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 252–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying: 001698620605000305
Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/ Popp, A. M., & Peguero, A. A. (2011). Routine activities and victimization at school: The
Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044- significance of gender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2413–2436. https://doi.
3409.217.4.205 org/10.1177/0886260510383021
Gross, M. U. M. (2002). Social and emotional issues for exceptionally intellectually gifted Preuss, L. J., & Dubow, E. F. (2004). A comparison between intellectually gifted and
students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. Moon (Eds.), The social and typical children in their coping responses to a school and a peer stressor. Roeper
emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 19–30). Washington: Review, 26, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554250
Prufrock Press. Richard, J. F., Schneider, B. H., & Mallet, P. (2011). Revisiting the whole-school
Hargrove, K. (2010). Stop school bullying: A tale of two girls. Gifted Child Today, 33(4), approach to bullying: Really looking at the whole school. School Psychology
39–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621751003300409 International, 33, 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034311415906
Hasekiu, F. (2013). Learning of bullying’s acts throught social learning. Journal of Rondini, C. A., & Almeida, A. (2022). Bullying and giftedness in school environment.
Educational and Social Research, 3(7), 131. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2013. Gifted and Talented International, 37(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/
v3n7p131 15332276.2021.1978351
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer Ryoo, J. H., Wang, C., & Swearer, S. M. (2017). Investigation of transitions in bullying/
victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent victimization statuses of gifted and general education students. Exceptional Children,
Behavior, 17, 311–322. 83(4), 396–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917698500
Hyatt, L. (2010). A case study of the suicide of a gifted female adolescent. Journal for the Sampasa, H., & Hamilton, H. A. (2015). Use of social networking sites and risk of
Education of the Gifted, 33, 514–535. cyberbullying victimization: A population-level study of adolescents.
Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18, 704–710. https://doi.org/
introduction. American Psychologist, 70, 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 10.1089/cyber.2015.0145
a0038928 Sariçam, H., & Çetinkaya, C. (2018). Exploring revenge as a mediator between bullying
Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. and victimization in gifted and talented students. Current Issues in Personality
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Psychology, 6(2), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2018.72267
jadohealth.2007.08.017 Schuler, P. A. (2002). Teasing and gifted children. The SENG Newsletter, 2(1), 3–4.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in Silverman, L. K. (2002). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis,
the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted
youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618 children: What do we know? (pp. 31–37). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Laffan, D. A., Slonje, R., Ledwith, C., O’Reilly, C., & Foody, M. (2022). Scoping bullying Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
and cyberbullying victimisation among a sample of gifted adolescents in ireland. Cyberbullying: Its nature an impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
International Journal of Bullying Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022- Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
00134-w 7610.2007.01846.x
Litster, K., & Roberts, J. (2011). The self-concepts and perceived competencies of gifted Stassen-Berger, K. (2007). Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten?
and non-gifted students: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Special Education Developmental Review, 27(1), 90–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.08.002
Needs, 11, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01166.x Sureda, I., López-Penádes, R., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R., & Sureda, J. (2020).
MacFarlane, B., & Mina, K. (2018). Cyberbullying and the gifted: Considerations for Cyberbullying and internet addiction in gifted and nongifted teenagers. Gifted Child
social and emotional development. Gifted Child Today, 41(3), 130–135. https://doi. Quarterly, 64(3), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220919338
org/10.1177/1076217518768362 Suzuki, K., Asaga, R., Sourander, A., Hoven, C. W., & Mandell, D. (2012). Cyberbullying
Mitchell, M. S. (2011). Cyberbullying and academic achievement: Research into the rates of and adolescent mental health. Journal Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24(1), 27–35.
incidence, knowledge of consequences, and behavioral patterns of cyberbullying. USA: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh.2012.005
University of Connecticut. Thomson, P., & Gunter, H. (2006). Researching bullying with students: A lens on
Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). everyday life in an “innovative school.”. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and 12, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110600855713
traditional bullying. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 602–611. https://doi.org/ Trompeter, N., Bussey, K., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2018). Correction to: Cyber victimization
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007 and internalizing difficulties: The mediating roles of coping self-efficacy and emotion
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred dysregulation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46, 1141. https://doi.org/
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. 10.1007/s10802-018-0405-y
Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819- Vaivre-Douret, L. (2011). Developmental and cognitive characteristics of “high-level
151-4-200908180-00135 potentialities” (highly gifted) children. International Journal Of Pediatrics, 2011,
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., Naylor, P., Barter, C., Ireland, J. L., & Coyne, I. (2009). Article 420297. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/420297
Bullying in different contexts: Commonalities, differences and the role of theory. Van Geel, M., Vedder, P., & Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization,
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(2), 1359–1789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 435.
avb.2009.01.004 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4143
Ogurlu, U., & Sariçam, H. (2018). Bullying, forgiveness and submissive behaviors in
gifted students. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 2833–2843. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10826-018-1138-9
Oliveira, J. C., & Barbosa, A. J. G. (2012). Bullying among students with and without
characteristics of giftedness. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 25(4), 747–755. https://
doi.org/10.1590/S0102- 79722012000400014

11
Á. Martínez-Monteagudo et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 71 (2023) 101842

Wachs, S. (2012). Moral disengagement and emotional and social difficulties in bullying Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and relational bullying among primary school
and cyberbullying: Differences by participant role. Emotional and Behavioural children and academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2), 135–155.
Difficulties, 17, 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2003.12.002
Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E., Goerss, J., Beljan, P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2005).
Misdiagnosis and dual diagnosis of gifted children and adults. Scottsdale, AZ: Great
Potential Press.

12