Using data gathered from 757 college students in South Korea, the current study examines applicability of situational action theory (SAT) to online bullying perpetration (OBP). Specifically, the current study focuses on testing interplays between motivations in the criminogenic online setting (temptation and provocation) and individual propensities (morality and self-control) as well as interplay between two individual propensities on OBP. Results show that morality significantly buffers the effects of provocation on OBP as expected, while morality unexpectedly enhances effects of temptation on OBP. Moreover, the current study found no significant interaction between two propensities, morality and self-control. Thus, future studies should focus on examining how roles of morality vary depending on different types of offenses and contexts.
AngR. P.HuanV. S.FlorellD. (2014). Understanding the relationship between proactive and reactive aggression, and cyberbullying across United States and Singapore adolescent samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 237-254. doi:10.1177/0886260513505149
2.
AntonaccioO.TittleC. R. (2008). Morality, self-control, and crime. Criminology, 46, 479-510. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00116.x
3.
BruinsmaG. J. N.PauwelsL. J. R.WeermanF. M.BernascoW. (2015). Situational action theory: Cross-sectional and cross-lagged tests of its core propositions. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57, 363-398. doi:10.3138/cjccj.2013.E24
4.
BusseyK.FitzpatrickS.RamanA. (2015). The role of moral disengagement and self-efficacy in cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 14, 30-46. doi:10.1080/15388220.2014.954045
5.
CalveteE.OrueI.EstévezA.VillardónL.PadillaP. (2010). Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors’ profile. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1128-1135. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017
6.
CochranJ. K. (2016). Moral propensity, setting, and choice: A partial test of situational action theory. Deviant Behavior, 37, 811-823. doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1145024
7.
DonnerC. M.MarcumC. D.JenningsW. G.HigginsG. E.BanfieldJ. (2014). Low self-control and cybercrime: Exploring the utility of the general theory of crime beyond digital piracy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 165-172. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.040
8.
GallupeO.BaronS. W. (2014). Morality, self-control, deterrence, and drug use: Street youths and situational action theory. Crime and Delinquency, 60, 284-305. doi:10.1177/0011128709359661
9.
GibbZ. G.DevereuxP. G. (2014). Who does that anyway? Predictors and personality correlates of cyberbullying in college. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 8-16. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.009
10.
GottfredsonM.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
GrasmickH. G.TittleC. R.BursikR. J.ArneklevB. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29. doi:10.1177/0022427893030001002
12.
HayC.ForrestW. (2008). Self-control theory and the concept of opportunity: The case for a more systematic union. Criminology, 46, 1039-1072. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00135.x
13.
HayC.MeldrumR.MannK. (2010). Traditional bullying, cyber bullying, and deviance: A general strain theory approach. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 130-147. doi:10.1177/1043986209359557
14.
HindujaS.PatchinJ. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14, 206-221. doi:10.1080/13811118.2010.494133
15.
HindujaS.PatchinJ. W. (2014). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
16.
HirtenlehnerH.HardieB. (2016). On the conditional relevance of controls: An application of situational action theory to shoplifting. Deviant Behavior, 37, 315-331. doi:10.1080/01639625.2015.1026764
17.
HirtenlehnerH.KunzF. (2016). The interaction between self-control and morality in crime causation among older adults. European Journal of Criminology, 13, 393-409. doi:10.1177/1477370815623567
18.
HirtenlehnerH.ReineckeJ. (2018). Introduction to the special issue with some reflections on the role of self-control in situational action theory. European Journal of Criminology, 15, 3-9. doi:10.1177/1477370817732182
19.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (2014). An assessment of the current state of cybercrime scholarship. Deviant Behavior, 35, 20-40. doi:10.1080/01639625.2013.822209
20.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M.MayD. C. (2012). Low self-control, deviant peer associations, and Juvenile cyberdeviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 378-395. doi:10.1007/s12103-011-9117-3
21.
KimJ.SongH.JenningsW. G. (2017). A distinct form of deviance or a variation of bullying? Examining the developmental pathways and motives of cyberbullying compared with traditional bullying in South Korea. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 1600-1625. doi:10.1177/0011128716675358
22.
Korea Internet & Security Agency. (2013). Survey on the internet usage. Seoul: Korea Internet & Security Agency (KISA).
23.
KowalskiR. M.GiumettiG. W.SchroederA. N.LattannerM. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1073-1137. doi:10.1037/a0035618
24.
KronebergC.SchulzS. (2018). Revisiting the role of self-control in situational action theory. European Journal of Criminology, 15, 56-76. doi:10.1177/1477370817732189
25.
LaGrangeT. C.SilvermanR. A. (1999). Low self-control and criminal opportunity: Testing the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37, 41-72. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00479.x
26.
LiC. K. W.HoltT. J.BosslerA. M.MayD. C. (2016). Examining the mediating effects of social learning on the low self-control—Cyberbullying relationship in a youth sample. Deviant Behavior, 37, 126-138. doi:10.1080/01639625.2014.1004023
27.
LianosH.McGrathA. (2018). Can the general theory of crime and general strain theory explain cyberbullying perpetration?Crime & Delinquency, 64, 674-700. doi:10.1177/0011128717714204
28.
LongshoreD. (1998). Self-control and criminal opportunity: A prospective test of the general theory of crime. Social Problems, 45, 102-113.
29.
MarcumC. D.HigginsG. E.FreiburgerT. L.RickettsM. L. (2014). Exploration of the cyberbullying victim/offender overlap by sex. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 538-548. doi:10.1007/s12103-013-9217-3
30.
MenesiniE.NocentiniA.CamodecaM. (2013). Morality, values, traditional bullying, and cyberbullying in adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31, 1-14. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02066.x
31.
MessnerS. F. (2015). When west meets east: Generalizing theory and expanding the conceptual toolkit of criminology. Asian Journal of Criminology, 10, 117-129. doi:10.1007/s11417-014-9197-3
32.
OsgoodD. W.FinkenL. L.McMorrisB. J. (2002). Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance II: Tobit regression analysis of transformed scores. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 319-347. doi:10.1023/A:1021198509929
33.
OuseyG. C.WilcoxP. (2007). The interaction of antisocial propensity and life-course varying predictors of delinquent behavior: Differences by method of estimation and implications for theory. Criminology, 45, 313-354. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00080.x
34.
PauwelsL. J. R. (2018). Analysing the perception–choice process in situational action theory. A randomized scenario study. European Journal of Criminology, 15, 130-147. doi:10.1177/1477370817732195
35.
PauwelsL. J. R.SvenssonR.HirtenlehnerH. (2018). Testing situational action theory: A narrative review of studies published between 2006 and 2015. European Journal of Criminology, 15, 32-55. doi:10.1177/1477370817732185
36.
PerrenS.Gutzwiller-HelfenfingerE. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in adolescence: Differential roles of moral disengagement, moral emotions, and moral values. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 195-209. doi:10.1080/17405629.2011.643168
37.
RobsonC.WitenbergR. T. (2013). The influence of moral disengagement, morally based self-esteem, age, and gender on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 12, 211-231. doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.762921
38.
SlonjeR.SmithP. K.FrisénA. (2012). Processes of cyberbullying, and feelings of remorse by bullies: A pilot study. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 244-259. doi:10.1080/17405629.2011.643670
39.
SvenssonR.PauwelsL. J. R. (2010). Is a risky lifestyle always “risky”? The interaction between individual propensity and lifestyle risk in adolescent offending: A test in two urban samples. Crime and Delinquency, 56, 608-626. doi:10.1177/0011128708324290
40.
SvenssonR.PauwelsL. J. R.WeermanF. M. (2010). Does the effect of self-control on adolescent offending vary by level of morality? A test in three countries. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 732-743. doi:10.1177/0093854810366542
41.
VazsonyiA. T.MachackovaH.SevcikovaA.SmahelD.CernaA. (2012). Cyberbullying in context: Direct and indirect effects by low self-control across 25 European countries. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 210-227. doi:10.1080/17405629.2011.644919
42.
WangX.YangL.YangJ.WangP.LeiL. (2017). Trait anger and cyberbullying among young adults: A moderated mediation model of moral disengagement and moral identity. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 519-526. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.073
43.
WikströmP.-O. H. (2004). Crime as alternative: Towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In McCordJ. (Ed.), Beyond empiricism: Institutions and intentions in the study of crime (pp. 1-38). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
44.
WikströmP.-O. H. (2005). The social origins of pathways in crime: Towards a developmental ecological action theory of crime involvement and its changes. In FarringtonD. P. (Ed.), Integrated developmental & life-course theories of offending: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 14, pp. 211-245). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
45.
WikströmP.-O. H. (2006). Individuals, settings, and acts of crime: Situational mechanisms and the explanation of crime. In SampsonR. J.WikströmP.-O. H. (Eds.), The explanation of crime: Contexts, mechanisms, and development (pp. 61-107). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
WikströmP.-O. H. (2010). Explaining crime as moral actions. In HitlinS.VaiseyS. (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of morality (pp. 211-239). New York, NY: Springer.
47.
WikströmP.-O. H. (2011). Does everything matter? Addressing the problem of causation and explanation in the study of crime. In McGloinJ. M.SilvermanC. J.KennedyL. W. (Eds.), When crime appears: The role of emergence (pp. 53-72). New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
WikströmP.-O. H. (2014). Why crime happens: A situational action theory. In ManzoG. (Ed.), Analytical sociology: Actions and networks (pp. 74-94). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118762707.ch03.
49.
WikströmP.-O. H.CeccatoV.HardieB.TreiberK. (2010). Activity fields and the dynamics of crime: Advancing knowledge about the role of the environment in crime causation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 55-87. doi:10.1007/s10940-009-9083-9
50.
WikströmP.-O. H.SvenssonR. (2010). When does self-control matter? The interaction between morality and self-control in crime causation. European Journal of Criminology, 7, 395-410. doi:10.1177/1477370810372132
51.
WikströmP.-O. H.TreiberK. (2007). The role of self-control in crime causation. European Journal of Criminology, 4, 237-264. doi:10.1177/1477370807074858
52.
WikströmP.-O. H.TreiberK. (2016). Situational theory: The importance of interactions and action mechanisms in the explanation of crime. In PiqueroA. R. (Ed.), The handbook of criminological theory (pp. 415-444). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
53.
WillardN. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
54.
WrightB. R. E.CaspiA.MoffittT. E.SilvaP. A. (2006). The effects of social ties on crime vary by criminal propensity: A life-course model of interdependence. Criminology, 39, 321-348. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00925.x
55.
WrightM. F.LiY. (2013). The association between cyber victimization and subsequent cyber aggression: The moderating effect of peer rejection. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 662-674. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9903-3
