Firstly, as shown in Table 2, in relation to bullying the overall percentage of victims, bully-victims, and perpetrators was 25.2%, 14.3% and 4.4% respectively. The overall rates of victimization (adding pure victims and bully-victims) and perpetration (perpetrators and bully-victims) are also shown, which amount to 39.5% and 18.7%, respectively. No statistically significant differences have been observed by gender in terms of overall victimization rates (40% vs. 38.7%), but they appeared in the specific profiles of bullying, with a significantly higher percentage of pure victims being found in the case of the female gender (χ² = 9.57; p < .001), while on males there were statistically significant higher rates of bully-victims (χ² = 9.29; p < .001) and perpetrators (χ² = 7.49; p < .05). A relatively similar pattern is found with respect to age, since, although no significant differences are observed with respect to overall victimization, a trend of increasing perpetration rates with age is observed. In any case, the observed differences reveal a small effect size.

Table 2

		Gender				Age group
	Global	Female	Male	χ2	V	10-12	13-14	15-17	χ2	V
Bullying
Victims	25.2%	28.1%	22.1%	9.57**	.07	27.2%	26%	22.1%	5.51*	.05
Bully-victims	14.3%	11.9%	16.6%	9.29*	.07	11.4%	16.7%	15.2%	8.6*	.07
Perpetrators	4.4%	3.2%	5.7%	7.49*	.06	1.5%	4.6%	7.3%	29.73*	.06
Victimization	39.5%	40%	38.7%	0.3	---	38.6%	42.7%	37.3%	3.82	---
Perpetration	18.7%	15.1%	22.3%	17.31**	.09	12.9%	21.3%	22.5%	26.02**	.04
Cyberbullying
Victims	9.3%	11.5%	7%	12.02**	.08	6.1%	11.6%	11.1%	15.23**	.09
Bully-victims	5.8%	4.2%	7.4%	9.26*	.07	2.8%	5.7%	9%	25.43**	.11
Perpetrators	4.3%	3.8%	4.8%	1.43	---	1.9%	5.1%	6.2%	17.49**	.09
Victimization	15.2%	15.9%	14.4%	0.79	---	8.9%	17.3%	20.1%	38.45**	.14
Perpetration	10.1%	8.1%	12.3%	9.94*	.07	4.7%	10.8%	15.2%	44.4**	.15

*p < .05; **p < .001.

Regarding the rates of cyberbullying, 9.3% of victims, 5.8% of bully-victims, and finally 4.3% of perpetrators were observed, which translates into 15.2% of overall victimization and 10.1% of perpetration. Again, gender does not imply a difference in terms of global victimization, but it does at the level of specific profiles, with higher rates of pure victims in the female gender (χ² = 12.01; p < .001) and of bully-victims in the male gender (χ² = 9.26; p < .051). No significant differences were observed in the case of pure perpetrators. Regarding age group, significant differences have been found both at a global level (victimization and aggression) and in the different cyberbullying profiles, with higher percentages found in the older age groups.

Regarding video game consumption, 66.1% of the adolescents indicated that they play video games at least once a month, while 52.8% played every week (Table 3), with an average of 8.64 hours per week (SD = 10.45). It should also be noted that 3.2% could be considered “intensive gamers” since they usually spend more than 30 hours each week playing video games. On the other hand, 32.1% of the global sample reported playing PEGI18 video games with content of explicit violence (47% of players). Considering gender, significant differences have been observed in terms of frequency of play, intensity, and consumption of PEGI18 video games, with higher rates always found in the male gender. In relation to the age group, despite not finding significant differences in the percentage of regular players, they were found both in the percentage of intensive players and in the percentage of PEGI18 video game consumption.

Table 3

		Gender				Age group
	Global	Female	Male	χ2	V	10-12	13-14	15-17	χ2	V
Regular players1 (%)	52.8%	24.7%	81.9%	668.16**	.57	56%	52.3%	49.9%	5.65	---
Intensive players2 (%)	3.2%	0.8%	6.6%	35.21**	.15	2.3%	5.6%	4.7%	8.95*	.07
PEGI18 (%)	47%	31.4%	55.5%	75.27**	.23	31.3%	54.6%	58.5%	87.62**	.25

Note. ¹They play every week; ²More than 30 hours per week (Andrade et al., 2021).

As shown in Table 4, the analyses carried out confirm a significant association between the consumption of PEGI18 video games and the overall rates of bullying and cyberbullying. In the first case, significant differences were found only at the level of global perpetration (χ² = 42.39; p < .05), but in the second both in perpetration (χ² = 29.41; p < .001), and in victimization (χ² = 17.94; p < .001). These results partially confirm the first working hypothesis, since in the case of bullying the differences found were limited only to perpetration.

Table 4

		PEGI18
	Global	No	Yes	χ2	V
Bullying
Victimization	39.4%	38.4%	42.4%	2.56	---
Perpetration	18.7%	15.4%	28.3%	42.39**	.15
Cyberbullying
Victimization	15.3%	13.3%	21.1%	17.94**	.09
Perpetration	10.2%	8%	16.4%	29.41**	.12

*p < .05; **p < .001.

Analyses considering gender (Table 5) and age group (Table 6) were carried out. In relation to gender, it has been observed that for females the differences are notable in the case of victimization (especially in cyberbullying), while for in males rates are greater in perpetration (both in bullying and cyberbullying). Regarding age, the differences are significant and more intense in the youngest group (10-12 years), both for victimization and perpetration and in both bullying and cyberbullying. These differences reduce with age, even disappearing in the 15-17-year-old group, which allows us to confirm the second hypothesis of this work.

Table 5

	Gender
	Female				Male
	Not PEGI18	PEGI18	χ2	V	Not PEGI18	PEGI18	χ2	V
Bullying
Victimization	41.3%	57.7%	11.49**	.15	36.6%	41%	1.78	---
Perpetration	15.8%	23.7%	4.46*	.1	17.3%	27.4%	12.73**	.12
Cyberbullying
Victimization	15.1%	37.4%	30.77**	.25	10.6%	18.3%	10.16**	.11
Perpetration	9.8%	14.8%	2.71	---	7.6%	16.2%	15.16**	.13

*p < .05; **p < .001.

Table 6

	Age group
	10-12				13-14				15-17
	Not PEGI18	PEGI18	χ2	V	Not PEGI18	PEGI18	χ2	V	Not PEGI18	PEGI18	χ2	V
Bullying
Victimization	37.5%	51.5%	9.95**	.14	41.1%	46.7%	1.35	---	40.3%	38.9%	0.1	---
Perpetration	11.7%	23%	11.38**	.15	18.4%	26.6%	3.97*	.1	24.6%	28.3%	0.77	---
Cyberbullying
Victimization	7.4%	17.5%	12.27**	.15	14.9%	24.4%	5.81*	.12	21.6%	24.7%	0.61	---
Perpetration	3.3%	11.4%	13.82**	.16	11.12%	14.7%	1.1	---	15.8%	20.2%	1.46	---

*p < .05; **p < .001.

Finally, a binary logistic regression was carried out, using victimization and perpetration of bullying and cyberbullying as criterion variables and the consumption of PEGI18 video games as a predictor, adjusting the analysis by gender and by age. For the latter, the original quantitative data were used, without grouping. Table 7 shows the Nagelkerke R² obtained for each model and the β coefficients associated with each variable. As can be seen in the Table 8, in all cases PEGI18 presents a statistically significant weight, both for bullying and cyberbullying. According to the Odd Ratio (OR) obtained, the weight of the PEGI is lower in bullying (1.49 and 1.57) than in cyberbullying (2.16 and 1.73). On the other hand, in relation to the gender variable, a significant weight has only been found with respect to victimization (both on bullying and cyberbullying), not with respect to perpetration. Male gender showed lower probabilities of victimization in both cases (OR = 0.67 and 0.49). Finally, age is a significant predictor except in bullying victimization, observing that the older the age, the greater the probability of victimization and perpetration tends to be, especially in the case of cyberbullying.

Table 7

	Model equation				Nagelkerke R2
	Constant	β1 (PEGI)	β2 (Gender)	β3 (Age)
Bullying
Victimization	0.46	0.4	-0.4	---	.02
Perpetration	-3.12	0.49	---	0.12	.04
Cyberbullying
Victimization	-3.49	0.77	-0.71	0.15	.07
Perpetration	4.83	0.54	---	0.19	.05

Table 8

		PEGI		Gender		Age
	n (%)	OR1	IC2 (95%)	OR1	IC2 (95%)	OR1	IC2 (95%)
Bullying
Victimization	808 (39.4)	1.49**	(1.18,1.87)	0.67**	(0.53, 0.84)	0.95	(0.9, 1)
Perpetration	383 (18.7)	1.57**	(1.19, 2.1)	1.18	(0.89, 1.58)	1.12**	(1.05, 1.2)
Cyberbullying
Victimization	311 (15.3)	2.16**	(1.59, 2.93)	0.49**	(0.36, 0.66)	1.15**	(1.08, 1.24)
Perpetration	207 (10.2)	1.73**	(1.21, 2.46)	0.95	(0.66, 1.36)	1.2*	(1.11, 1.31)

Note. ¹OR = Odds ratio; ²IC = Confidence Interval.

This work was proposed with the fundamental objective of analyzing the relationship between the consumption of video games classified as PEGI18 (with content of explicit violence), bullying, and cyberbullying.

Despite not being an objective of the study itself, the data collected have made it possible to verify, first, high rates of bullying and cyberbullying (both victimization and perpetration), which serves to emphasize the warnings that institutions such as UNESCO (2019) or UNICEF (Andrade et al., 2021) have been making, which indicate that around one in three adolescents in the world could be a victim of bullying. Different authors insist on this same idea, both in Spain (Pichel et al., 2022) and internationally (Jadambaa et al., 2019). The differences found by gender and age are also consistent with the literature (Feijóo et al., 2021a; Feijóo et al., 2021b; Walters, 2021), which justifies the need to definitively adopt a gender approach.

As far as the consumption of video games is concerned, it has been confirmed that these constitute one of the main leisure channels for adolescents today, both in terms of frequency of use (two out of every three adolescents play video games at least once a month) and intensity (8.64 hours per week on average). Both data are similar to those offered by both Asociación Española de Videojuegos itself (2023) and Andrade et al. (2021). Significant differences have been found based on gender, with higher rates in both frequency and intensity in the case of the male gender. These results are again consistent with previous research (Andrade et al., 2021), and can be partially explained by the original fact that traditional video games would be designed by and for men, reflecting these rates the historical trajectory of the video game industry (Kuss & Griffiths, 2012). On the other hand, recent studies confirm a greater presence of male characters than female characters, being the latter notably sexualized and generally adopting secondary roles (Leonhardt & Overå, 2021; Skowronsky et al., 2021).

Focusing on the main objective of this work, it has been observed that there is a relatively high usage of PEGI 18 video games (featuring explicit violence content) among adolescents. Specifically, 32.1% of the global sample reported playing PEGI 18 video games, with this figure rising to 47% among those who play video games at least once a month. These percentages are, again, higher in male gender, which coincides with the data provided by Andrade et al. (2021). A partial explanation of this phenomenon could be that this type of video games offers players the opportunity to satisfy needs and motivations associated with dominant roles or with a greater interest in sexual activity, elements that according to Denson et al. (2022) have traditionally been associated with males.

The possible implications of the consumption of PEGI18 video games on victimization and perpetration due to both bullying and cyberbullying were also analyzed. In the case of cyberbullying, the results found at the bivariate level show a significant relationship both regarding victimization and perpetration, limited to the latter in the case of bullying. However, the results obtained at a multivariate level (by performing a logistic regression) reveal that although this effect is smaller, it is equally significant. Considering these results, it would be possible to affirm that the consumption of PEGI18 video games in childhood and adolescence is associated with higher rates of bullying and cyberbullying. While in bullying the observed differences are more noticeable in the case of perpetration than in victimization, in cyberbullying very similar differences have been found in both cases, but comparatively larger. This association between the use of video games with explicit violence content is consistent with the findings of previous works, in which it is confirmed that the consumption of violent video games has implications for the social behavior of the individual and on aggressive behaviors (Burkhardt & Lenhard, 2022; Greitmeyer, 2022). This relationship could be explained through the General Affective Aggression Model, which establishes that the consumption of violent video games could, in a certain way, “teach” and “reward” aggressive behavior towards peers, thereby reinforcing the belief that aggressive solutions are functional (Anderson & Dill, 2000). This interpretation could underlie the possible normalization of aggressive behavior in normal interaction patterns, which would translate into higher rates of bullying and cyberbullying.

Finally, the results obtained reveal a more intense effect of PEGI18 video game use at early ages, with larger effect sizes in the 10-12 age group. As age increases, this effect seems to dilute. These results are consistent with the work of Burkhardt and Lenhard (2022) carried out in the field of prevention and which insist on greater vulnerability in these vital stages. On the other hand, the results also show the need to adapt the contents of the different video games to the age of their users, ensuring compliance with the PEGI regulations (Pan European Game Information, 2015).

In conclusion, this work has allowed us to empirically verify that the use of PEGI18 video games with explicit violence is a relatively frequent behavior from early adolescence, which denotes a manifest non-compliance with international recommendations. It has been found that the consumption of this type of content is a factor that can dangerously contribute to the normalization of violence between equals, as well as attitudes and behaviors contrary to coexistence. Especially in early adolescence, the consumption of violent content through video games is associated with levels of victimization that double and perpetration that triples, especially in the case of cyberbullying. If we take into account that, according to data from the Asociación Española de Videojuegos (2023), the age group between 6 and 14 years concentrates the main segment of video game consumers in Spain, it is urgent to establish measures at the preventive level. Firstly, more determined work is necessary at the level of family prevention. Parents must have stricter control in the selection of video game titles and/or formats that their children consume, as well as greater supervision and support regarding their leisure activities. With respect to the use of the internet and social networks, it has been observed that adequate supervision and control by parents constitutes an important protective factor, in order to prevent both problematic use and different online risk behaviors (Gómez et al., 2017; Gómez-Ortiz et al., 2018). Secondly, the work with parents must be completed with specific actions at the school prevention level, considering the educational potential that has traditionally been attributed to the video game (López-Gómez et al., 2022). Finally, from the point of view of environmental prevention, it is no less important to urge institutions and the video game industry itself to play a more active role in promoting responsible consumption and, in particular, in dissemination and compliance of the PEGI regulations.

Regarding the limitations of this work, it should be noted that, despite the size of the available sample (N = 2,083), the fact that non-probabilistic sampling was used means that the results must be interpreted with caution. On the other hand, this is a cross-sectional study, so cause-effect relationships cannot be established. Only the use of a longitudinal design would allow us to reliably report the effects of consuming PEGI18 video games on bullying and cyberbullying.