Cyberbullying often happens in the presence of bystanders whose behaviors play a key role in changing dynamics of the situation. To examine the factors influencing cyberbystander likelihood of intervening in cyberbullying on social media, a 2 (degree of cyberbullying severity: high vs low) × 2 (level of interpersonal similarity: high vs low) between-subjects experiment was conducted (N = 132). Results indicated that cyberbystanders’ empathic responses depended on the severity of cyberbullying. The more empathy bystanders felt, the more likely they were to publicly and privately intervene. Moreover, the indirect effect of cyberbullying severity on willingness to intervene through empathy was more pronounced when the interpersonal similarity between victim and cyberbystander was low, rather than it was high.
AndersonJBresnahanMMusaticsC (2014) Combating weight-based cyberbullying on Facebook with the dissenter effect. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking17(5): 281–286.
2.
ArtissKLLevineAS (1973) Doctor-patient relation in severe illness: a seminar for oncology fellows. The New England Journal of Medicine288(23): 1210–1214.
3.
BastiaensensSVandeboschHPoelsK, et al. (2014) Cyberbullying on social network sites. An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully. Computers in Human Behavior31: 259–271.
4.
BatsonCDCokeJS (1981) Empathy: a source of altruistic motivation for helping? In: RushtonJPSorrentinoRM (eds) Altruism and Helping Behavior: Social, Personality, and Developmental Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 167–187.
5.
BatsonCDShawLL (1991) Evidence for altruism: toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry2(2): 107–122.
6.
BatsonCDTurkCLShawLL, et al. (1995) Information function of empathic emotion: learning that we value the other’s welfare. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology68(2): 300–313.
7.
BennettSBanyardVL (2016) Do friends really help friends? The effect of relational factors and perceived severity on bystander perception of sexual violence. Psychology of Violence6(1): 64–72.
8.
BrodyNVangelistiAL (2016) Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Communication Monographs83(1): 94–119.
9.
BrownLMBradleyMMLangPJ (2006) Affective reactions to pictures of ingroup and outgroup members. Biological Psychology71(3): 303–311.
10.
ChenLHoSSLwinMO (2017) A meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: from the social cognitive and media effects approach. New Media & Society19(8): 1194–1213.
11.
CialdiniRBBrownSLLewisBP, et al. (1997) Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: when one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology73(3): 481–494.
12.
ClarkKB (1980) Empathy: a neglected topic in psychological research. American Psychologist35(2): 187–190.
13.
ClarkRDWordLE (1972) Why don’t bystanders help? Because of ambiguity?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology24(3): 392–400.
14.
DavisMH (1983) Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology44(1): 113–126.
15.
DeSmetAVeldemanCPoelsK, et al. (2014) Determinants of self-reported bystander behavior in cyberbullying incidents amongst adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking17(4): 207–215.
16.
DillonKPBushmanBJ (2015) Unresponsive or un-noticed? Cyberbystander intervention in an experimental cyberbullying context. Computers in Human Behavior45: 144–150.
17.
DovidioJF (1984) Helping behavior and altruism: an empirical and conceptual overview. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 17. New York: Academic Press, pp. 361–427.
18.
DovidioJFPiliavinJAGaertnerS, et al. (1991) The arousal: cost-reward model and the process of intervention: a review of the evidence. In: ClarkMS (ed.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 86–118.
19.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.
20.
FischerPGreitemeyerTPollozekF, et al. (2006) The unresponsive bystander: are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies?European Journal of Social Psychology36(2): 267–278.
21.
FischerPKruegerJIGreitemeyerT, et al. (2011) The bystander-effect: a meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin137(4): 517–537.
22.
FreisSDGurungRA (2013) A Facebook analysis of helping behavior in online bullying. Psychology of Popular Media Culture2(1): 11–19.
23.
GahaganKVaterlausJMFrostLR (2016) College student cyberbullying on social networking sites: conceptualization, prevalence, and perceived bystander responsibility. Computers in Human Behavior55: 1097–1105.
24.
GeerJHJarmeckyL (1973) The effect of being responsible for reducing another’s pain on subjects’ response and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology26(2): 232–237.
25.
GiniG (2006) Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: what’s wrong?Aggressive Behavior32(6): 528–539.
26.
GiniGAlbieroPBenelliB, et al. (2007) Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior?Aggressive Behavior33(5): 467–476.
27.
GrayCRussellPBlockleyS (1991) The effects upon helping behaviour of wearing pro-gay identification. British Journal of Social Psychology30(2): 171–178.
28.
HayesAF (2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. 2nd ed.New York: Guilford Press.
29.
HuangYYChouC (2010) An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among junior high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior26(6): 1581–1590.
30.
JacksonS (1992) Message Effects Research: Principles of Design and Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
31.
KazerooniFTaylorSHBazarovaNN, et al. (2018) Cyberbullying bystander intervention: the number of offenders and retweeting predict likelihood of helping a cyberbullying victim. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication23(3): 146–162.
32.
KowalskiRMLimberSP (2007) Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health41(6): 22–30.
33.
KrebsD (1975) Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology32(6): 1134–1146.
34.
LatanéBDarleyJM (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help?Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
LearyMRKowalskiRM (1990) Impression management: a literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin107(1): 34–47.
36.
LiviatanITropeYLibermanN (2008) Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology44(5): 1256–1269.
37.
LivingstoneSÓlafssonKStaksrudE (2013) Risky social networking practices among “underage” users: lessons for evidence-based policy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(3): 303–320.
38.
LynnR (1966) Attention, Arousal and the Orientation Reaction. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
39.
MachackovaHDedkovaLSevcikovaA, et al. (2016) Empathic responses by cyberbystanders: the importance of proximity. Journal of Youth Studies19(6): 793–804.
40.
O’ConnellPPeplerDCraigW (1999) Peer involvement in bullying: insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence22(4): 437–452.
41.
ObermaierMFawziNKochT (2016) Bystanding or standing by? How the number of bystanders affects the intention to intervene in cyberbullying. New Media & Society18(8): 1491–1507.
42.
PatchinJWHindujaS (2012) Cyberbullying Prevention and Response: Expert Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
43.
PattersonLJAllanACrossD (2017) Adolescent perceptions of bystanders’ responses to cyberbullying. New Media & Society19(3): 366–383.
44.
PiliavinJADovidioJFGaertnerSL, et al. (1981) Emergency Intervention. New York: Academic Press.
45.
SalmivalliC (2010) Bullying and the peer group: a review. Aggression and Violent Behavior15(2): 112–120.
46.
SilverRCWortmanCBCroftonC (1990) The role of coping in support provision: the self-presentational dilemma of victims of life crises. In: SarasonIGSarasonBRPierceGR (eds) Social Support: An Interactional View. New York: John Wiley, pp. 397–426.
47.
SmithPKMahdaviJCarvalhoM, et al. (2008) Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry49(4): 376–385.
48.
SprecherS (2014) Effects of actual (manipulated) and perceived similarity on liking in get-acquainted interactions: the role of communication. Communication Monographs81(1): 4–27.
49.
StapelDAReicherSDSpearsR (1994) Social identity, availability and the perception of risk. Social Cognition12(1): 1–17.
50.
ThornbergR (2007) A classmate in distress: schoolchildren as bystanders and their reasons for how they act. Social Psychology of Education10(1): 5–28.
51.
TokunagaRS (2010) Following you home from school: a critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior26(3): 277–287.
52.
TurnerJCHoggMAOakesPJ, et al. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
53.
Van CleemputKVandeboschHPabianS (2014) Personal characteristics and contextual factors that determine “helping,” “joining in,” and “doing nothing” when witnessing cyberbullying. Aggressive Behavior40(5): 383–396.
54.
Van NoordenTHBukowskiWMHaselagerGJ, et al. (2016) Disentangling the frequency and severity of bullying and victimization in the association with empathy. Social Development25(1): 176–192.
55.
WeiLLiuB (2020) Reactions to others’ misfortune on social media: effects of homophily and publicness on schadenfreude, empathy, and perceived deservingness. Computers in Human Behavior102: 1–13.
56.
WortmanCBDunkel-SchetterC (1979) Interpersonal relationships and cancer: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Social Issues35(1): 120–155.
57.
YbarraMLMitchellKJ (2004) Youth engaging in online harassment: associations with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence27(3): 319–336.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
