no, disagree. let's step back and think about which is an elective activity and which is not. a kid has no choice but walk home from school, and possibly be accosted by bullies. there's always a choice involved in logging on to facebook, or whether to pay any attention to cyber-taunting. one cannot easily (or at all) be turned off, and one is as easy as walking away from it or logging off.
the article puts figures to their conclusions and thus appears to lend credence to their hypotheses, but (so far as the article is concerned... i have not delved into further detail of the study for instance) i conjecture that the sampling is skewed due to the population having certain characteristics that may not be common to both groups (i.e. the physically bullied and the digitally bullied).
one more point: "Cyber-bullying victims do not see and may not even know who their harasser is, which can make them feel more vulnerable". huh? wait a sec. being physically attacked every day during or after school somehow makes one feel *less* vulnerable than engaging in an elective activity that one can painlessly log off from and escape? what a bizarre world these researchers live in, that they can conclude that physical abuse appears preferable to digital. essentially, "never have i felt more vulnerable than sitting in front of a computer monitor, helplessly strapped to facebook absorbing taunt after taunt. i so wish i were being chased down the street, having my stomach kicked, coat torn and mud stuffed down my shirt. oh the good old days!"
now, no one conclude i think that cyber-bullying isn't real, or doesn't have real results. i agree it is, and does. i'm simply responding to the question of degree.