{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023316062176165803, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025906735751295338, 'mean_word_length': 5.940119760479042, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bullying by definition: an examination of definitional components of bullying

Lack of definitional consensus remains an important unresolved issue within bullying research. This study examined the ability of definitional variables to predict overall level of victimisation (distress, power inequity, and provocation as predictors) and bullying (intention to harm, power inequity, and provocation as predictors) in 246 Australian university students. All variables were measured using the Victimisation and Bullying Inventory (VBI), with behaviour assessed separately for tertiary institution, workplace and home contexts. Regression analysis revealed that, as expected, higher levels of distress predicted higher levels of victimisation (in all contexts) and higher levels of intention to harm predicted higher levels of engagement in bullying (in work and home contexts). Challenging definitional theory, bullying was reported as most commonly occurring between two equals, from both the victim and bully perspective, and individuals who bullied others blamed the victim for provoking the behaviour twice as often as victims felt that they had provoked it.