A study on children between the ages of 14 and 17 in six European countries that 21.4% had suffered episodes of cyberbullying in the last twelve months (Kowalsky & Limber, 2013). The consequences can cause severe damage and, in the worst case, lead to suicide (Bauman et al., 2013]. The root of the violence is in the socialization about the attractiveness linked to violence (Puigvert, 2014). This type of socialization occurs when social interactions (media, peer group, family, school) link attractiveness to violence.

Scientific Literature on cyberbullying show how the minors victims of cyberbullying suffer some affection in their development (Athanasiou et al, 2018). Likewise, it shows a few programs are effective in the prevent cyberbullying in school. In spite of this, Della Cioppa, O'Neil, and Craig (2015), who evaluated 20 prevention programs, showed that the programs that mitigate the situation of conflicts were related to the participation of the educational community or the incorporation of spaces beyond the school.

Prevention programs must include all problems from family to family, peer intervention, and the use of information and communications technology (ICT) and social networks (Cassidy, 2013; Ortega Barón, 2016). It must also incorporate non-trivialization of violence, and the active posture of the entire educational community is important (Duque et al., 2016). This fact is known as “Zero Violence from 0 years old” (Oliver, 2014). The development of empathy is essential for people to take an active position against cyberbullying, but the litter shows that it is a barrier (Nickerson, 2015). Learning to face cyberbullying is one of the attitudes that people have to acquire. That is why victims and their defenders must be considered in the prevention of harassment. Those who defend victims suffer reprisals for the support they offer; they are known as second-order victims (Vidu, 2017). When children play an active role in response to cyberbullying, cyberbullying decreases (Brody, 2016).

The role of adults is essential in stopping bullying. According to one study, 60% of cyberbullying victims look for reliable adults when they report abuse (Jones, 2015). Minors require adult interlocutors who can create safe and secure communication spaces in which children can communicate problems (Larrañaga, 2016). Programs that incorporate an active role of adults in the community reduce cyberbullying. The cyberbullying prevention programs with the best results involve all community education, encourages zero tolerance for any type of cyberbullying or other violent interactions, and empowers minors, teachers, and families to collaborate in the creation of spaces for dialogue.

Our research questions are: a) Does the dialogical model of prevention and resolution of conflicts (DMPRC), which is characterized by daily community participation, foster an environment in which children feel safe to report cases of cyberbullying? b) Does the coordination of adults (teachers and family members) collaborating in a zero tolerance for violence program create a safer space? And finally, c) does DMPRC reduces violent interactions while increasing active solidarity towards the victims and those who support them?

In this qualitative study, we draw on the communicative methodology (Flecha, 2014). This methodology studies reality while improving people's living conditions, which guarantees the social impact of research (Reale, 2017). The case study was chosen concerning the qualitative analysis of the application DMPRC (Aiello, 2018). The DMPRC is an educational action that is characterized by the participation of the entire educational community (teachers, family, students, and other social agents), has the main characteristic: coexistence agreements are reached in an assembly through a dialogue process that involves students, family members and teachers. This action was implemented in the 2014-2015 school year in a pre-primary and primary education center in Terrasa, a city of Catalonia (Spain). This school began to implement the DMPRC in the 2014-2015 school year. This research has had the objective of analyzing the results of the application of this model in the detection and prevention of cyberbullying. The collection of program data in terms of improvement of coexistence was carried out for ten months in 2017. Among the many results obtained, this paper presents those results related to the case of cyberbullying that happened in a primary class. The information collection tools were: documentary analysis of the program, communicative observation of the coexistence commission, and in-depth interviews. The documentary analysis included documentation with results obtained by the school and those reports related to the implementation of the DMPRC. The communicative observation of the school coexistence commission (N = 6) was based on observing five mixed commissions attended by an average of 18 people (students, teachers, and family members) and a "Zero Violence" workshop at the that 90 people attended. The students participated in all these meetings in which the coexistence agreement was implemented and the problems that they had to face to ensure a safe space were raised. In-depth interviews (N = 4) were conducted to the person responsible for promoting coexistence to the teacher of the class in which the case of cyberbullying occurred, the director of the centre, and the mother of a student. The purpose of these interviews was to understand the various roles of responsibility adopted in relation to the action taken and the results achieved.

Main results: The first result focuses on how the application of the DMPRC promotes the breaking with the silence that existed concerning the cases of cyberbullying, which got the children to be involved, empowered, and denounce the cases of cyberbullying. The coexistence commissions, a space for dialogue where the application of DMPRC is monitored, consisted of mixed assemblies made up of family members, teachers, and students. Daily coexistence problems were addressed, how to deal with such issues, and how to prevent them. The second result achieved was the improvement of the intervention by adults (teachers and family) of the community in the case of cyberbullying. Their involvement favoured the creation of a safe environment where children gained sufficient confidence to raise problems that occurred outside of school. According to the data analyzed, students feel safe at school, treat the issues of living together as a concern of the community, and seeing their families and teachers together increases their confidence. The positive effect achieved in all these domains has been guided by scientific evidence that supports the DMPRC and the validity of dialogic pedagogical meetings. The third and final result obtained is related to how the application of the DMPRC enhances active solidarity with the victims and the people who support them, thereby achieving the prevention of revictimization. According to the interviewed people, they indicate that in the past, the harassment in the centre was silenced and that after the application of the DMPRC, this behaviour has changed, and it is shown how the class group demonstrates solidarity with the victims who had denounced the case of cyberbullying. In this way, students learn to reject violent behaviour by practising solidarity, and stalkers change more quickly because they do not find the social recognition of their classmates, families, or teachers.

- Aiello, E., Puigvert, L., & Schubert, T. (2018). Preventing violent radicalization of youth through dialogic evidence-based policies. International Sociology, 33(4), 435-453. - Athanasiou, K., et al. (2018). Cross-national aspects of cyberbullying victimization among 14–17-year-old adolescents across seven European countries. BMC public health, 18(1), 1-15. - Bauman, S., Toomey, R. B., & Walker, J. L. (2013). Associations among bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students. Journal of adolescence, 36(2), 341-350. - Brody, N., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2016). Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Communication Monographs, 83(1), 94-119. - Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A comprehensive review of current international research and its implications and application to policy and practice. School psychology international, 34(6), 575-612. - Della Cioppa, V., O'Neil, A., & Craig, W. (2015). Learning from traditional bullying interventions: A review of research on cyberbullying and best practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 61-68. - Duque, E., & Teixido, J. (2016). Bullying and gender. Prevention from school organization. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 6(2), 176-204. - Flecha, R., & Soler, M. (2014). Communicative methodology: Successful actions and dialogic democracy. Current sociology, 62(2), 232-242. - Jones, L. M., Mitchell, K. J., & Turner, H. A. (2015). Victim reports of bystander reactions to in-person and online peer harassment: A national survey of adolescents. Journal of youth and adolescence, 44(12), 2308-2320. - Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of adolescent health, 53(1), S13-S20. - Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., Ovejero, A., & Navarro, R. (2016). Loneliness, parent-child communication, and cyberbullying victimization among Spanish youths. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 1-8. - Nickerson, A. B., Aloe, A. M., & Werth, J. M. (2015). The relation of empathy and defending in bullying. School Psychology Review, 44(4), 372-390. - Oliver, E. (2014). Zero violence since early childhood: The dialogic recreation of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(7), 902-908. - Ortega Barón, J., Vázquez, S., & Caballero, M. (2016). Influencia del clima escolar y familiar en adolescentes, víctimas de ciberacoso. Comunicar: Revista científica iberoamericana de comunicación y educación, (46), 57-65. - Puigvert, L. (2014). Preventive socialization of gender violence: Moving forward using the communicative methodology of research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(7), 839-843. - Reale, E., et al. (2018). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social, and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 298-308. - Vidu, A., Valls, R., Puigvert, L., Melgar, P., & Joanpere, M. (2017). Second-order of sexual harassment-SOSH. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 1-26.