Positive or negative spirals of online behavior? Exploring reciprocal associations between being the actor and the recipient of prosocial and antisocial behavior online
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2018
Positive or negative spirals of online behavior? Exploring reciprocal associations between being the actor and the recipient of prosocial and antisocial behavior online
Bidirectional associations between being cyberbullied and cyberbullying others have been suggested, as well as bidirectional patterns of online prosocial behavior (reciprocity). However, so far, these relations have been studied as population-level associations, and it is not clear whether they also reflect within-person behavioral patterns. Therefore, this study aimed to disentangle between-person and within-person processes in online antisocial (cyberbullying) and prosocial behavior over time. Random intercept cross-lagged panel models were used to examine long-term within-person patterns of involvement in cyberbullying and online prosocial behavior. The findings showed no within-person effects between cyberbullying victimization and perpetration over time. In contrast, results did reveal significant within-person autoregressive effects of performing and receiving online prosocial behavior over time, and within-person cross-lagged effects between receiving online prosocial behavior and acting prosocially later on. These results indicate long-term positive, reinforcing spirals of prosocial exchanges, but no long-term negative spirals of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization.
AkŞÖzdemirYKuzucuY (2015) Cybervictimization and cyberbullying: the mediating role of anger, don’t anger me!Computers in Human Behavior49: 437–443.
2.
AllenJJAndersonCABushmanBJ (2018) The general aggression model. Current Opinion in Psychology19: 75–80.
3.
AndersonCABushmanBJ (2002) Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology53(1): 27–51.
4.
AndersonCABuckleyKECarnageyNL (2008) Creating your own hostile environment: a laboratory examination of trait aggressiveness and the violence escalation cycle. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin34(4): 462–473.
5.
AngRP (2015) Adolescent cyberbullying: a review of characteristics, prevention and intervention strategies. Aggression and Violent Behavior25(A): 35–42.
6.
ArseneaultLBowesLShakoorS (2010) Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: “much ado about nothing”?Psychological Medicine40: 717–729.
7.
BarkerEDArseneaultLBrendgenMet al. (2008) Joint development of bullying and victimization in adolescence: relations to delinquency and self-harm. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry47(9): 1030–1038.
8.
BarlettCPCoyneSM (2014) A meta-analysis of sex differences in cyber-bullying behavior: the moderating role of age. Aggressive Behavior40(5): 474–488.
9.
BarlettCPGentileDA (2012) Attacking others online: the formation of cyberbullying in late adolescence. Psychology of Popular Media Culture1(2): 123–135.
10.
BarlettCPWrightMF (2017) Longitudinal relations among cyber, physical, and relational bullying and victimization: comparing majority and minority ethnic youth. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma. Epub ahead of print 25July. DOI: 10.1007/s40653-017-0174-8.
11.
BartlettMYDe StenoD (2006) Gratitude and prosocial behavior: helping when it costs you. Psychological Science17(4): 319–325.
12.
BayraktarFMachackovaHDedkovaLet al. (2014) Cyberbullying: the discriminant factors among cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbully-victims in a Czech adolescent sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence30: 3192–3216.
13.
BirkelandMSKnattenCKHansenMBet al. (2016) Long-term relationships between perceived social support and posttraumatic stress after the 2011 Oslo bombing: a three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Affective Disorders202: 230–235.
14.
BowesLMaughanBBallHet al. (2013) Chronic bullying victimization across school transitions: the role of genetic and environmental influences. Development and Psychopathology25(2): 333–346.
15.
BrighiAOrtegaRPyzalskiJet al. (2012) European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPQ). Unpublished manuscript, University of Bologna.
16.
Del ReyRCasasJAOrtega-RuizRet al. (2015) Structural validation and cross-cultural robustness of the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior50: 141–147.
17.
DovidioJFPiliavinJASchroederDAet al. (2006) The Social Psychology of Prosocial Behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
ErreygersSVandeboschHVranjesIet al. (2017) Development of a measure of adolescents’ online prosocial behavior. Manuscript submitted for publication.
19.
EisenbergNFabesRASpinradTL (2006) Prosocial development. In: EisenbergNDamonWLernerRM (eds) Handbook of Child Psychology. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development. 6th ed.New York: Wiley, pp. 646–718.
20.
EisenbergNGuthrieIKCumberlandAet al. (2002) Prosocial development in early adulthood: a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82(6): 993–1006.
21.
EmersonRM (1976) Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology2: 335–362.
22.
EspelageDLRaoMACravenRG (2013) Theories of cyberbullying. In: BaumanSCrossDWalkerJ (eds) Principles of Cyberbullying Research: Definitions, Measures, and Methodology. New York: Routledge, pp. 49–67.
23.
EwoldsenDREnoCAOkdieBMet al. (2012) Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking15(5): 277–280.
24.
FestlRQuandtT (2016) The role of online communication in long-term cyberbullying involvement among girls and boys. Journal of Youth and Adolescence45(9): 1931–1945.
25.
FestlRScharkowMQuandtT (2015) The individual or the group: a multilevel analysis of cyberbullying in school classes. Human Communication Research41(4): 535–556.
26.
FestlRVogelgesangJScharkowMet al. (2017) Longitudinal patterns of involvement in cyberbullying: results from a Latent Transition Analysis. Computers in Human Behavior66: 7–15.
27.
FrijdaNH (1986) The Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
GrayKWardAFNortonMI (2014) Paying it forward: generalized reciprocity and the limits of generosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General143(1): 247–254.
29.
GreitemeyerTCoxC (2013) There’s no “I” in team: effects of cooperative video games on cooperative behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology43(3): 224–228.
30.
GuoS (2016) A meta-analysis of the predictors of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization. Psychology in the Schools53(4): 432–453.
31.
HamakerELKuiperRMGrasmanRPPP (2015) A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods20(1): 102–116.
32.
KeijsersL (2016) Parental monitoring and adolescent problem behaviors: how much do we really know?International Journal of Behavioral Development40(3): 271–281.
33.
KeysarBConverseBaWangJet al. (2008) Reciprocity is not give and take: asymmetric reciprocity to positive and negative acts. Psychological Science19(12): 1280–1286.
34.
KievitRAFrankenhuisWEWaldorpLJet al. (2013) Simpson’s paradox in psychological science: a practical guide. Frontiers in Psychology4(513): 1–14.
35.
KönigAGollwitzerMSteffgenG (2010) Cyberbullying as an act of revenge?Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling20(2): 210–224.
36.
KowalskiRMGiumettiGWSchroederANet al. (2014) Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin140(4): 1073–1137.
37.
KowalskiRMLimberSPAgatstonPW (2012) Cyberbullying: Bullying in the Digital Age. 2nd ed.Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
38.
LaiLSLTurbanE (2008) Groups formation and operations in the Web 2.0 environment and social networks. Group Decision and Negotiation17(5): 387–402.
39.
LauterbachDTruongHShahTet al. (2009) Surfing a web of trust: reputation and reciprocity on couchsurfing.com. In: Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on computational science and engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 29–31 August, pp. 346–353. New York: IEEE.
40.
LawDMShapkaJDHymelSet al. (2012) The changing face of bullying: an empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior28(1): 226–232.
41.
McLure WaskoMFarajS (2000) “It is what one does”: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems9(2–3): 155–173.
42.
MenesiniECamodecaM (2008) Shame and guilt as behaviour regulators: relationships with bullying, victimization and prosocial behaviour. British Journal of Developmental Psychology26(2): 183–196.
43.
MenesiniENocentiniACalussiP (2011) The measurement of cyberbullying: dimensional structure and relative item severity and discrimination. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking14(5): 267–274.
44.
MolenaarPCMCampbellCG (2009) The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science18(2): 112–117.
NelsonMRRademacherMA (2009) From trash to treasure: freecycle.org as a case of generalized reciprocity. Advances in Consumer Research36: 905–906.
47.
PabianSVandeboschH (2015) Short-term longitudinal relationships between adolescents’ (cyber)bullying perpetration and bonding to school and teachers. International Journal of Behavioral Development40: 165–172.
48.
PabianSVandeboschH (2016) Developmental trajectories of (cyber)bullying perpetration and social intelligence during early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence36(2): 145–170.
49.
PieschlSPorschTKahlTet al. (2013) Relevant dimensions of cyberbullying — Results from two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 34(5): 241–252.
50.
RankinDJTaborskyM (2009) Assortment and the evolution of generalized reciprocity. Evolution63(7): 1913–1922.
51.
RobertsG (2008) Evolution of direct and indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences275(1631): 173–179.
52.
Schultze-KrumbholzAGöbelKScheithauerHet al. (2015) A comparison of classification approaches for cyberbullying and traditional bullying using data from six European countries. Journal of School Violence14(1): 47–65.
53.
SlaterMD (2007) Reinforcing spirals: the mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory17(3): 281–303.
54.
ŠléglováVČernáA (2011) Cyberbullying in adolescent victims: Perception and coping. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace5(2).
55.
SmithPKMahdaviJCarvalhoMet al. (2008) Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines49(4): 376–385.
56.
SmokowskiPREvansCBRCotterKL (2014) The differential impacts of episodic, chronic, and cumulative physical bullying and cyberbullying: the effects of victimization on the school experiences, social support, and mental health of rural adolescents. Violence and Victims29(6): 1029–1046.
57.
SouranderABrunstein KlomekAIkonenMet al. (2010) Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents: a population-based study. Archives of General Psychiatry67(7): 720–728.
58.
StancaL (2009) Measuring indirect reciprocity: whose back do we scratch?Journal of Economic Psychology30(2): 190–202.
59.
SulerJ (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior7(3): 321–326.
60.
Te PoelFBaumgartnerSEHartmannTet al. (2016) The curious case of cyberchondria: A longitudinal study on the reciprocal relationship between health anxiety and online health information seeking. Journal of Anxiety Disorders43: 32–40.
61.
TriversRL (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology46(1): 35–57.
62.
Van Den EijndenRVermulstAVan RooijAJet al. (2014) The bidirectional relationships between online victimization and psychosocial problems in adolescents: a comparison with real-life victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence43(5): 790–802.
63.
Van HoornJVan DijkEMeuweseRet al. (2016) Peer influence on prosocial behavior in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence26(1): 90–100.
64.
Van RijsewijkLDijkstraJKPattiselannoKet al. (2016) Who helps whom? Investigating the development of adolescent prosocial relationships. Developmental Psychology52(6): 894–908.
65.
VandeboschHVan CleemputK (2008) Defining cyberbullying: a qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology & Behavior11(4): 499–503.
66.
VandeboschHVan CleemputK (2009) Cyberbullying among youngsters: profiles of bullies and victims. New Media & Society11(8): 1349–1371.
67.
VeenstraR (2006) The development of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: prosocial and antisocial behavior in adolescence. In: FetchenhauerDFlacheABuunkAPet al. (eds) Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior: An Integration of Sociological and Psychological Perspectives. Berlin: Springer, pp. 93–108.
68.
VelezJAMahoodCEwoldsenDRet al. (2014) Ingroup versus outgroup conflict in the context of violent video game play. Communication Research41(5): 607–626.
69.
VöllinkTBolmanCAWDehueFet al. (2013) Coping with cyberbullying: differences between victims, bully-victims and children not involved in bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology23(1): 7–24.
70.
WalraveMHeirmanW (2011) Cyberbullying: predicting victimisation and perpetration. Children & Society25(1): 59–72.
71.
WardenDChristieDKerrCet al. (1996) Children’s prosocial and antisocial behaviour, as perceived by children, parents and teachers. Educational Psychology16(4): 365–378.
72.
WardenDChristieD (1997) Teaching social behaviour. London: David Fulton.
73.
WardenDMackinnonS (2003) Prosocial children, bullies and victims: an investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology21(3): 367–385.
74.
WeinsteinECSelmanRLThomasSet al. (2016) How to cope with digital stress: The recommendations adolescents offer their peers online. Journal of Adolescent Research31(4): 415–441.
75.
WhitneyISmithPK (1993) A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research35(1): 3–25.
76.
WrightMFLiY (2013) The association between cyber victimization and subsequent cyber aggression: the moderating effect of peer rejection. Journal of Youth and Adolescence42(5): 662–674.
77.
YamagishiTJinNKiyonariT (1999) Bounded generalized reciprocity: ingroup boasting and ingroup favoritism. Advances in Group Processes16: 161–197.
